Wind Turbine Payback in Bryan County, OK
Wind turbine payback in Bryan 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 Bryan County, OK averages 5.29 m/s (11.8 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 14,538 kWh a year, worth $2,008 at OK's 13.81¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 50 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Bryan County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Bryan County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.4 m/s at the hub against 5.29 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,355 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,454, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 34¢/kWh, 2.5 times what OK pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.4 m/s instead of 5.29. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of OK
Bryan County is the 1,328th 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 Bryan County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.20 m/s and about 1,741 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.18 m/s and 638 kWh, so the best month makes 2.7 times the worst. November to March brings in 51% of the year's output in Bryan County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.69 m/s | 1,480 kWh | $204 |
| February | 5.86 m/s | 1,431 kWh | $198 |
| March | 6.10 m/s | 1,738 kWh | $240 |
| April | 6.20 m/s | 1,741 kWh | $240 |
| May | 5.46 m/s | 1,335 kWh | $184 |
| June | 4.85 m/s | 949 kWh | $131 |
| July | 4.24 m/s | 666 kWh | $92 |
| August | 4.18 m/s | 638 kWh | $88 |
| September | 4.46 m/s | 747 kWh | $103 |
| October | 5.25 m/s | 1,213 kWh | $168 |
| November | 5.71 m/s | 1,443 kWh | $199 |
| December | 5.57 m/s | 1,405 kWh | $194 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Bryan County averages 3.96 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.05 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.263, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 10,918 to 20,075 kWh a year, 84% 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 | 4.75 m/s | 10,918 kWh | 66 years |
| 30 m | 5.29 m/s | 14,534 kWh | 50 years |
| 40 m | 5.71 m/s | 17,530 kWh | 41 years |
| 50 m | 6.05 m/s | 20,075 kWh | 36 years |
Counties around Bryan County
5 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Johnston County, averages 6.07 m/s.
- Fannin County, TX: 5.72 m/s, 17,638 kWh, payback 35 years (27 mi)
- Marshall County, OK: 5.95 m/s, 19,334 kWh, payback 38 years (29 mi)
- Atoka County, OK: 5.49 m/s, 15,965 kWh, payback 45 years (32 mi)
- Johnston County, OK: 6.07 m/s, 20,223 kWh, payback 36 years (33 mi)
- Grayson County, TX: 5.89 m/s, 18,890 kWh, payback 33 years (33 mi)
- Choctaw County, OK: 4.06 m/s, 6,883 kWh, payback over 100 years (41 mi)
Sun versus wind in Bryan County
Bryan County gets 4.64 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,355 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,454. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.1 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.