Wind Turbine Payback in Cochran County, TX
Wind turbine payback in Cochran 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 Cochran County, TX averages 6.28 m/s (14 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 21,781 kWh a year, worth $3,491 at TX's 16.03¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 29 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Cochran County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Cochran County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.6 m/s at the hub against 6.28 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,609 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,178, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 23¢/kWh, 1.4 times what TX pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.6 m/s instead of 6.28. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of TX
Cochran County is the 498th 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 Cochran County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.30 m/s and about 2,394 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.16 m/s and 1,160 kWh, so the best month makes 2.1 times the worst. November to March brings in 46% of the year's output in Cochran County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.48 m/s | 1,978 kWh | $317 |
| February | 6.76 m/s | 1,942 kWh | $311 |
| March | 6.84 m/s | 2,199 kWh | $352 |
| April | 7.30 m/s | 2,394 kWh | $384 |
| May | 6.58 m/s | 2,039 kWh | $327 |
| June | 6.27 m/s | 1,784 kWh | $286 |
| July | 5.45 m/s | 1,331 kWh | $213 |
| August | 5.16 m/s | 1,160 kWh | $186 |
| September | 5.54 m/s | 1,341 kWh | $215 |
| October | 6.12 m/s | 1,748 kWh | $280 |
| November | 6.40 m/s | 1,865 kWh | $299 |
| December | 6.51 m/s | 1,995 kWh | $320 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Cochran County averages 4.91 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.04 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.224, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 17,739 to 27,328 kWh a year, 54% 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 | 5.73 m/s | 17,739 kWh | 35 years |
| 30 m | 6.28 m/s | 21,772 kWh | 29 years |
| 40 m | 6.7 m/s | 24,851 kWh | 25 years |
| 50 m | 7.04 m/s | 27,328 kWh | 23 years |
Counties around Cochran County
None of the 6 closest counties is windier than Cochran County.
- Hockley County, TX: 6.2 m/s, 21,187 kWh, payback 29 years (28 mi)
- Yoakum County, TX: 6.16 m/s, 20,891 kWh, payback 30 years (31 mi)
- Bailey County, TX: 6.28 m/s, 21,781 kWh, payback 29 years (32 mi)
- Terry County, TX: 6.14 m/s, 20,742 kWh, payback 30 years (41 mi)
- Lamb County, TX: 6.22 m/s, 21,336 kWh, payback 29 years (42 mi)
- Roosevelt County, NM: 6.01 m/s, 19,778 kWh, payback 33 years (47 mi)
Sun versus wind in Cochran County
Cochran County gets 5.51 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,609 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,178. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.4 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.