Wind Turbine Payback in Beckham County, OK
Wind turbine payback in Beckham County
No. The turbine wears out before it pays for itself.
At 30 m, the height a home turbine tower usually reaches, the wind in Beckham County, OK averages 6.56 m/s (14.7 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 23,849 kWh a year, worth $3,293 at OK's 13.81¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 30 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Beckham County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Beckham County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.4 m/s at the hub against 6.56 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,463 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,385, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 21¢/kWh, 1.5 times what OK pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.4 m/s instead of 6.56. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of OK
Beckham County is the 139th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in OK is Cimarron County at 6.82 m/s, payback 28 years.
Month by month in Beckham County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.52 m/s and about 2,522 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.64 m/s and 1,449 kWh, so the best month makes 1.7 times the worst. November to March brings in 43% of the year's output in Beckham County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.50 m/s | 1,989 kWh | $275 |
| February | 6.60 m/s | 1,852 kWh | $256 |
| March | 7.00 m/s | 2,299 kWh | $317 |
| April | 7.52 m/s | 2,522 kWh | $348 |
| May | 6.79 m/s | 2,167 kWh | $299 |
| June | 6.74 m/s | 2,070 kWh | $286 |
| July | 5.84 m/s | 1,572 kWh | $217 |
| August | 5.64 m/s | 1,449 kWh | $200 |
| September | 6.12 m/s | 1,690 kWh | $233 |
| October | 6.66 m/s | 2,089 kWh | $288 |
| November | 6.78 m/s | 2,092 kWh | $289 |
| December | 6.51 m/s | 1,995 kWh | $276 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Beckham County averages 5.17 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.32 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.216, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 19,746 to 29,299 kWh a year, 48% more, before counting the extra cost of the taller tower. Why tower height decides it explains the shear behind these numbers.
| Hub height | Average wind | Output | Payback |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20 m | 6.01 m/s | 19,746 kWh | 37 years |
| 30 m | 6.56 m/s | 23,814 kWh | 30 years |
| 40 m | 6.98 m/s | 26,868 kWh | 27 years |
| 50 m | 7.32 m/s | 29,299 kWh | 25 years |
Counties around Beckham County
None of the 6 closest counties is windier than Beckham County.
- Greer County, OK: 6.23 m/s, 21,410 kWh, payback 34 years (25 mi)
- Roger Mills County, OK: 6.56 m/s, 23,849 kWh, payback 30 years (30 mi)
- Wheeler County, TX: 6.56 m/s, 23,849 kWh, payback 26 years (33 mi)
- Harmon County, OK: 6.04 m/s, 20,001 kWh, payback 36 years (37 mi)
- Collingsworth County, TX: 6.22 m/s, 21,336 kWh, payback 29 years (39 mi)
- Washita County, OK: 6.45 m/s, 23,038 kWh, payback 31 years (39 mi)
Sun versus wind in Beckham County
Beckham County gets 5.01 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,463 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,385. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.6 times. Panel output assumes an 80% system performance ratio. Wind or solar runs the same comparison for every county.
How this is worked out
Wind is NASA's Power climate record, the 2001-2025 average at 10 m and 50 m for the county's centre, carried to 30 m with this county's own measured wind shear and spread into hours with a Rayleigh distribution. The turbine is a generic 10 kW, 7 m rotor machine with 10% losses. Cost is $10,000 per kW installed with no tax credit, because the federal one ended in 2025. One county-centre number cannot see your hilltop or your tree line, so treat it as the starting point for a site survey, not a substitute. The full method and its weak spots are in how the numbers are made.