Wind Turbine Payback in Bowie County, TX
Wind turbine payback in Bowie 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 Bowie County, TX averages 4.42 m/s (9.9 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 8,865 kWh a year, worth $1,421 at TX's 16.03¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 70 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Bowie County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Bowie County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.6 m/s at the hub against 4.42 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,323 kWh a year here against the turbine's 887, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 56¢/kWh, 3.5 times what TX pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.6 m/s instead of 4.42. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of TX
Bowie County is the 1,799th 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 Bowie County
March is the strongest month here, at 5.11 m/s and about 1,126 kWh. August is the weakest, 3.49 m/s and 363 kWh, so the best month makes 3.1 times the worst. November to March brings in 52% of the year's output in Bowie County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.74 m/s | 917 kWh | $147 |
| February | 4.91 m/s | 914 kWh | $147 |
| March | 5.11 m/s | 1,126 kWh | $180 |
| April | 5.16 m/s | 1,119 kWh | $179 |
| May | 4.56 m/s | 826 kWh | $132 |
| June | 3.90 m/s | 500 kWh | $80 |
| July | 3.50 m/s | 369 kWh | $59 |
| August | 3.49 m/s | 363 kWh | $58 |
| September | 3.88 m/s | 493 kWh | $79 |
| October | 4.37 m/s | 730 kWh | $117 |
| November | 4.76 m/s | 901 kWh | $144 |
| December | 4.65 m/s | 871 kWh | $140 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Bowie County averages 3.2 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.13 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.293, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 6,192 to 13,421 kWh a year, 117% 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 | 3.92 m/s | 6,192 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 4.42 m/s | 8,847 kWh | 71 years |
| 40 m | 4.81 m/s | 11,246 kWh | 56 years |
| 50 m | 5.13 m/s | 13,421 kWh | 47 years |
Counties around Bowie County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Red River County, averages 5.04 m/s.
- Little River County, AR: 4.42 m/s, 8,865 kWh, payback 82 years (21 mi)
- Cass County, TX: 3.72 m/s, 5,253 kWh, payback over 100 years (25 mi)
- Morris County, TX: 4.89 m/s, 11,800 kWh, payback 53 years (29 mi)
- Miller County, AR: 3.55 m/s, 4,530 kWh, payback over 100 years (32 mi)
- Titus County, TX: 4.89 m/s, 11,800 kWh, payback 53 years (35 mi)
- Red River County, TX: 5.04 m/s, 12,805 kWh, payback 49 years (38 mi)
Sun versus wind in Bowie County
Bowie County gets 4.53 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,323 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 887. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.5 times as much here as the turbine. 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.