Wind Turbine Payback in Cimarron County, OK
Wind turbine payback in Cimarron 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 Cimarron County, OK averages 6.82 m/s (15.3 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 25,747 kWh a year, worth $3,556 at OK's 13.81¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 28 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Cimarron County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Cimarron County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.4 m/s at the hub against 6.82 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,548 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,575, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 19¢/kWh, 1.4 times what OK pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.4 m/s instead of 6.82. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of OK
Cimarron County is the 30th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. It is the windiest county in OK.
Month by month in Cimarron County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.62 m/s and about 2,579 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.88 m/s and 1,597 kWh, so the best month makes 1.6 times the worst. November to March brings in 43% of the year's output in Cimarron County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.74 m/s | 2,136 kWh | $295 |
| February | 7.00 m/s | 2,073 kWh | $286 |
| March | 7.24 m/s | 2,441 kWh | $337 |
| April | 7.62 m/s | 2,579 kWh | $356 |
| May | 6.91 m/s | 2,241 kWh | $309 |
| June | 6.95 m/s | 2,195 kWh | $303 |
| July | 6.13 m/s | 1,754 kWh | $242 |
| August | 5.88 m/s | 1,597 kWh | $221 |
| September | 6.64 m/s | 2,008 kWh | $277 |
| October | 6.76 m/s | 2,153 kWh | $297 |
| November | 7.15 m/s | 2,310 kWh | $319 |
| December | 6.85 m/s | 2,208 kWh | $305 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Cimarron County averages 5.38 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.61 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.215, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 21,553 to 31,279 kWh a year, 45% 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 | 6.25 m/s | 21,553 kWh | 34 years |
| 30 m | 6.82 m/s | 25,736 kWh | 28 years |
| 40 m | 7.25 m/s | 28,836 kWh | 25 years |
| 50 m | 7.61 m/s | 31,279 kWh | 23 years |
Counties around Cimarron County
None of the 6 closest counties is windier than Cimarron County.
- Dallam County, TX: 6.82 m/s, 25,747 kWh, payback 24 years (32 mi)
- Baca County, CO: 6.65 m/s, 24,509 kWh, payback 24 years (39 mi)
- Sherman County, TX: 6.66 m/s, 24,582 kWh, payback 25 years (47 mi)
- Morton County, KS: 6.6 m/s, 24,142 kWh, payback 27 years (49 mi)
- Union County, NM: 6.75 m/s, 25,239 kWh, payback 26 years (56 mi)
- Texas County, OK: 6.63 m/s, 24,362 kWh, payback 30 years (57 mi)
Sun versus wind in Cimarron County
Cimarron County gets 5.3 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,548 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,575. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.7 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.