Wind Turbine Payback in Blanco County, TX
Wind turbine payback in Blanco 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 Blanco County, TX averages 5.69 m/s (12.7 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 17,419 kWh a year, worth $2,792 at TX's 16.03¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 36 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Blanco County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Blanco County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.6 m/s at the hub against 5.69 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,437 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,742, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 29¢/kWh, 1.8 times what TX pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.6 m/s instead of 5.69. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of TX
Blanco County is the 1,136th 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 Blanco County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.47 m/s and about 1,908 kWh. September is the weakest, 4.68 m/s and 857 kWh, so the best month makes 2.2 times the worst. November to March brings in 48% of the year's output in Blanco County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.00 m/s | 1,675 kWh | $269 |
| February | 6.19 m/s | 1,619 kWh | $260 |
| March | 6.33 m/s | 1,882 kWh | $302 |
| April | 6.47 m/s | 1,908 kWh | $306 |
| May | 6.02 m/s | 1,686 kWh | $270 |
| June | 5.45 m/s | 1,289 kWh | $207 |
| July | 5.04 m/s | 1,088 kWh | $174 |
| August | 4.81 m/s | 958 kWh | $154 |
| September | 4.68 m/s | 857 kWh | $137 |
| October | 5.46 m/s | 1,337 kWh | $214 |
| November | 5.89 m/s | 1,550 kWh | $248 |
| December | 5.97 m/s | 1,652 kWh | $265 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Blanco County averages 4.42 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.4 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.230, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 13,794 to 22,669 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 | 5.18 m/s | 13,794 kWh | 45 years |
| 30 m | 5.69 m/s | 17,423 kWh | 36 years |
| 40 m | 6.08 m/s | 20,296 kWh | 31 years |
| 50 m | 6.4 m/s | 22,669 kWh | 28 years |
Counties around Blanco County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Gillespie County, averages 5.89 m/s.
- Hays County, TX: 5.56 m/s, 16,471 kWh, payback 38 years (26 mi)
- Kendall County, TX: 5.75 m/s, 17,859 kWh, payback 35 years (29 mi)
- Comal County, TX: 5.56 m/s, 16,471 kWh, payback 38 years (32 mi)
- Gillespie County, TX: 5.89 m/s, 18,890 kWh, payback 33 years (33 mi)
- Llano County, TX: 5.89 m/s, 18,890 kWh, payback 33 years (35 mi)
- Burnet County, TX: 5.75 m/s, 17,859 kWh, payback 35 years (38 mi)
Sun versus wind in Blanco County
Blanco County gets 4.92 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,437 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,742. 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.