Wind Turbine Payback in Bee County, TX
Wind turbine payback in Bee 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 Bee County, TX averages 5.6 m/s (12.5 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 16,762 kWh a year, worth $2,687 at TX's 16.03¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 37 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Bee County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Bee County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.6 m/s at the hub against 5.6 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,405 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,676, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 30¢/kWh, 1.9 times what TX pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.6 m/s instead of 5.6. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of TX
Bee County is the 1,170th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in TX is Dallam County at 6.82 m/s, payback 24 years.
Month by month in Bee County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.40 m/s and about 1,861 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.71 m/s and 905 kWh, so the best month makes 2.1 times the worst. November to March brings in 46% of the year's output in Bee County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.84 m/s | 1,570 kWh | $252 |
| February | 6.01 m/s | 1,514 kWh | $243 |
| March | 6.18 m/s | 1,789 kWh | $287 |
| April | 6.40 m/s | 1,861 kWh | $298 |
| May | 6.17 m/s | 1,783 kWh | $286 |
| June | 5.41 m/s | 1,264 kWh | $203 |
| July | 5.11 m/s | 1,131 kWh | $181 |
| August | 4.71 m/s | 905 kWh | $145 |
| September | 4.78 m/s | 913 kWh | $146 |
| October | 5.32 m/s | 1,252 kWh | $201 |
| November | 5.60 m/s | 1,375 kWh | $220 |
| December | 5.70 m/s | 1,487 kWh | $238 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Bee County averages 4.37 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.29 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.226, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 13,308 to 21,855 kWh a year, 64% 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 | 5.11 m/s | 13,308 kWh | 47 years |
| 30 m | 5.6 m/s | 16,792 kWh | 37 years |
| 40 m | 5.98 m/s | 19,561 kWh | 32 years |
| 50 m | 6.29 m/s | 21,855 kWh | 29 years |
Counties around Bee County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Nueces County, averages 6.18 m/s.
- Live Oak County, TX: 5.6 m/s, 16,762 kWh, payback 37 years (24 mi)
- Goliad County, TX: 5.6 m/s, 16,762 kWh, payback 37 years (25 mi)
- San Patricio County, TX: 5.89 m/s, 18,890 kWh, payback 33 years (31 mi)
- Karnes County, TX: 5.39 m/s, 15,247 kWh, payback 41 years (35 mi)
- Refugio County, TX: 5.79 m/s, 18,153 kWh, payback 34 years (36 mi)
- Nueces County, TX: 6.18 m/s, 21,039 kWh, payback 30 years (49 mi)
Sun versus wind in Bee County
Bee County gets 4.81 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,405 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,676. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.2 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.