Wind Turbine Payback in Comal County, TX
Wind turbine payback in Comal 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 Comal County, TX averages 5.56 m/s (12.4 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 16,471 kWh a year, worth $2,640 at TX's 16.03¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 38 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Comal County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Comal County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.6 m/s at the hub against 5.56 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,413 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,647, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 30¢/kWh, 1.9 times what TX pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.6 m/s instead of 5.56. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of TX
Comal County is the 1,181st 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 Comal County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.26 m/s and about 1,776 kWh. September is the weakest, 4.62 m/s and 827 kWh, so the best month makes 2.1 times the worst. November to March brings in 48% of the year's output in Comal County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.92 m/s | 1,623 kWh | $260 |
| February | 6.06 m/s | 1,546 kWh | $248 |
| March | 6.16 m/s | 1,774 kWh | $284 |
| April | 6.26 m/s | 1,776 kWh | $285 |
| May | 5.89 m/s | 1,606 kWh | $257 |
| June | 5.29 m/s | 1,193 kWh | $191 |
| July | 4.92 m/s | 1,020 kWh | $164 |
| August | 4.73 m/s | 912 kWh | $146 |
| September | 4.62 m/s | 827 kWh | $133 |
| October | 5.33 m/s | 1,260 kWh | $202 |
| November | 5.79 m/s | 1,489 kWh | $239 |
| December | 5.88 m/s | 1,600 kWh | $256 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Comal County averages 4.33 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.25 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.228, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 13,021 to 21,558 kWh a year, 66% 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 | 5.07 m/s | 13,021 kWh | 48 years |
| 30 m | 5.56 m/s | 16,492 kWh | 38 years |
| 40 m | 5.94 m/s | 19,260 kWh | 32 years |
| 50 m | 6.25 m/s | 21,558 kWh | 29 years |
Counties around Comal County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Kendall County, averages 5.75 m/s.
- Hays County, TX: 5.56 m/s, 16,471 kWh, payback 38 years (22 mi)
- Guadalupe County, TX: 5.35 m/s, 14,963 kWh, payback 42 years (24 mi)
- Kendall County, TX: 5.75 m/s, 17,859 kWh, payback 35 years (29 mi)
- Bexar County, TX: 5.38 m/s, 15,176 kWh, payback 41 years (30 mi)
- Blanco County, TX: 5.69 m/s, 17,419 kWh, payback 36 years (32 mi)
- Caldwell County, TX: 5.43 m/s, 15,534 kWh, payback 40 years (38 mi)
Sun versus wind in Comal County
Comal County gets 4.84 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,413 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,647. 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.