Wind Turbine Payback in Cass County, TX
Wind turbine payback in Cass 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 Cass County, TX averages 3.72 m/s (8.3 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 5,253 kWh a year, worth $842 at TX's 16.03¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of over 100 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Cass County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Cass County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.6 m/s at the hub against 3.72 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,323 kWh a year here against the turbine's 525, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 95¢/kWh, 5.9 times what TX pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.6 m/s instead of 3.72. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of TX
Cass County is the 2,277th 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 Cass County
April is the strongest month here, at 4.30 m/s and about 671 kWh. August is the weakest, 2.99 m/s and 217 kWh, so the best month makes 3.1 times the worst. November to March brings in 53% of the year's output in Cass County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.04 m/s | 577 kWh | $92 |
| February | 4.13 m/s | 558 kWh | $89 |
| March | 4.25 m/s | 670 kWh | $107 |
| April | 4.30 m/s | 671 kWh | $108 |
| May | 3.80 m/s | 476 kWh | $76 |
| June | 3.27 m/s | 286 kWh | $46 |
| July | 2.99 m/s | 217 kWh | $35 |
| August | 2.99 m/s | 217 kWh | $35 |
| September | 3.31 m/s | 296 kWh | $47 |
| October | 3.69 m/s | 435 kWh | $70 |
| November | 4.00 m/s | 542 kWh | $87 |
| December | 3.95 m/s | 535 kWh | $86 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Cass County averages 2.43 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.54 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.388, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 3,171 to 9,580 kWh a year, 202% 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 | 3.18 m/s | 3,171 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.72 m/s | 5,269 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 4.16 m/s | 7,426 kWh | 84 years |
| 50 m | 4.54 m/s | 9,580 kWh | 65 years |
Counties around Cass County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Morris County, averages 4.89 m/s.
- Marion County, TX: 3.72 m/s, 5,253 kWh, payback over 100 years (20 mi)
- Morris County, TX: 4.89 m/s, 11,800 kWh, payback 53 years (22 mi)
- Bowie County, TX: 4.42 m/s, 8,865 kWh, payback 70 years (25 mi)
- Miller County, AR: 3.55 m/s, 4,530 kWh, payback over 100 years (30 mi)
- Titus County, TX: 4.89 m/s, 11,800 kWh, payback 53 years (36 mi)
- Camp County, TX: 4.89 m/s, 11,800 kWh, payback 53 years (37 mi)
Sun versus wind in Cass County
Cass 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 525. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 2.5 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.