Wind Turbine Payback in Caddo County, OK
Wind turbine payback in Caddo 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 Caddo County, OK averages 6.25 m/s (14 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 21,558 kWh a year, worth $2,977 at OK's 13.81¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 34 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Caddo County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Caddo County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.4 m/s at the hub against 6.25 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,428 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,156, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 23¢/kWh, 1.7 times what OK pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.4 m/s instead of 6.25. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of OK
Caddo County is the 528th 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 Caddo County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.23 m/s and about 2,359 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.21 m/s and 1,186 kWh, so the best month makes 2.0 times the worst. November to March brings in 45% of the year's output in Caddo County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.31 m/s | 1,869 kWh | $258 |
| February | 6.45 m/s | 1,768 kWh | $244 |
| March | 6.87 m/s | 2,217 kWh | $306 |
| April | 7.23 m/s | 2,359 kWh | $326 |
| May | 6.53 m/s | 2,008 kWh | $277 |
| June | 6.20 m/s | 1,743 kWh | $241 |
| July | 5.34 m/s | 1,265 kWh | $175 |
| August | 5.21 m/s | 1,186 kWh | $164 |
| September | 5.59 m/s | 1,372 kWh | $189 |
| October | 6.39 m/s | 1,919 kWh | $265 |
| November | 6.66 m/s | 2,018 kWh | $279 |
| December | 6.27 m/s | 1,846 kWh | $255 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Caddo County averages 4.85 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.03 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.231, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 17,411 to 27,257 kWh a year, 57% 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 | 5.69 m/s | 17,411 kWh | 42 years |
| 30 m | 6.25 m/s | 21,540 kWh | 34 years |
| 40 m | 6.68 m/s | 24,705 kWh | 29 years |
| 50 m | 7.03 m/s | 27,257 kWh | 27 years |
Counties around Caddo County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Washita County, averages 6.45 m/s.
- Grady County, OK: 6.25 m/s, 21,558 kWh, payback 34 years (30 mi)
- Canadian County, OK: 6.41 m/s, 22,743 kWh, payback 32 years (34 mi)
- Comanche County, OK: 6.07 m/s, 20,223 kWh, payback 36 years (35 mi)
- Washita County, OK: 6.45 m/s, 23,038 kWh, payback 31 years (36 mi)
- Kiowa County, OK: 6.26 m/s, 21,632 kWh, payback 34 years (38 mi)
- Custer County, OK: 6.45 m/s, 23,038 kWh, payback 31 years (48 mi)
Sun versus wind in Caddo County
Caddo County gets 4.89 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,428 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,156. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.5 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.