Wind Turbine Payback in Cooke County, TX
Wind turbine payback in Cooke 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 Cooke County, TX averages 5.91 m/s (13.2 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 19,038 kWh a year, worth $3,052 at TX's 16.03¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 33 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Cooke County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Cooke County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.6 m/s at the hub against 5.91 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,405 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,904, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 26¢/kWh, 1.6 times what TX pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.6 m/s instead of 5.91. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of TX
Cooke County is the 978th 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 Cooke County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.92 m/s and about 2,177 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.79 m/s and 945 kWh, so the best month makes 2.3 times the worst. November to March brings in 48% of the year's output in Cooke County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.17 m/s | 1,780 kWh | $285 |
| February | 6.35 m/s | 1,709 kWh | $274 |
| March | 6.65 m/s | 2,080 kWh | $333 |
| April | 6.92 m/s | 2,177 kWh | $349 |
| May | 6.20 m/s | 1,797 kWh | $288 |
| June | 5.69 m/s | 1,432 kWh | $230 |
| July | 4.96 m/s | 1,044 kWh | $167 |
| August | 4.79 m/s | 945 kWh | $151 |
| September | 4.97 m/s | 1,015 kWh | $163 |
| October | 5.87 m/s | 1,591 kWh | $255 |
| November | 6.29 m/s | 1,798 kWh | $288 |
| December | 6.11 m/s | 1,741 kWh | $279 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Cooke County averages 4.56 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.67 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.236, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 15,126 to 24,655 kWh a year, 63% 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 | 5.37 m/s | 15,126 kWh | 41 years |
| 30 m | 5.91 m/s | 19,056 kWh | 33 years |
| 40 m | 6.33 m/s | 22,135 kWh | 28 years |
| 50 m | 6.67 m/s | 24,655 kWh | 25 years |
Counties around Cooke County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Love County, averages 5.96 m/s.
- Love County, OK: 5.96 m/s, 19,408 kWh, payback 37 years (22 mi)
- Montague County, TX: 5.91 m/s, 19,038 kWh, payback 33 years (30 mi)
- Denton County, TX: 5.77 m/s, 18,006 kWh, payback 35 years (30 mi)
- Grayson County, TX: 5.89 m/s, 18,890 kWh, payback 33 years (31 mi)
- Marshall County, OK: 5.95 m/s, 19,334 kWh, payback 38 years (37 mi)
- Wise County, TX: 5.82 m/s, 18,374 kWh, payback 34 years (39 mi)
Sun versus wind in Cooke County
Cooke County gets 4.81 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,405 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,904. 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.