Wind Turbine Payback in Burnet County, TX
Wind turbine payback in Burnet 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 Burnet County, TX averages 5.75 m/s (12.9 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 17,859 kWh a year, worth $2,863 at TX's 16.03¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 35 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Burnet County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Burnet County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.6 m/s at the hub against 5.75 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,437 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,786, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 28¢/kWh, 1.7 times what TX pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.6 m/s instead of 5.75. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of TX
Burnet County is the 1,110th 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 Burnet County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.58 m/s and about 1,975 kWh. September is the weakest, 4.73 m/s and 884 kWh, so the best month makes 2.2 times the worst. November to March brings in 48% of the year's output in Burnet County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.06 m/s | 1,712 kWh | $274 |
| February | 6.26 m/s | 1,662 kWh | $266 |
| March | 6.42 m/s | 1,935 kWh | $310 |
| April | 6.58 m/s | 1,975 kWh | $317 |
| May | 6.05 m/s | 1,706 kWh | $273 |
| June | 5.53 m/s | 1,335 kWh | $214 |
| July | 5.06 m/s | 1,098 kWh | $176 |
| August | 4.81 m/s | 957 kWh | $153 |
| September | 4.73 m/s | 884 kWh | $142 |
| October | 5.56 m/s | 1,401 kWh | $225 |
| November | 5.97 m/s | 1,602 kWh | $257 |
| December | 6.02 m/s | 1,684 kWh | $270 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Burnet County averages 4.45 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.48 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.234, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 14,112 to 23,260 kWh a year, 65% 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 | 5.23 m/s | 14,112 kWh | 44 years |
| 30 m | 5.75 m/s | 17,858 kWh | 35 years |
| 40 m | 6.15 m/s | 20,819 kWh | 30 years |
| 50 m | 6.48 m/s | 23,260 kWh | 27 years |
Counties around Burnet County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Llano County, averages 5.89 m/s.
- Lampasas County, TX: 5.75 m/s, 17,859 kWh, payback 35 years (28 mi)
- Llano County, TX: 5.89 m/s, 18,890 kWh, payback 33 years (29 mi)
- Williamson County, TX: 5.52 m/s, 16,181 kWh, payback 39 years (37 mi)
- Blanco County, TX: 5.69 m/s, 17,419 kWh, payback 36 years (38 mi)
- San Saba County, TX: 5.82 m/s, 18,374 kWh, payback 34 years (44 mi)
- Bell County, TX: 5.61 m/s, 16,834 kWh, payback 37 years (46 mi)
Sun versus wind in Burnet County
Burnet 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 1,786. 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.