Wind Turbine Payback in Cottle County, TX
Wind turbine payback in Cottle 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 Cottle County, TX averages 6.1 m/s (13.6 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 20,446 kWh a year, worth $3,277 at TX's 16.03¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 31 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Cottle County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Cottle County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.6 m/s at the hub against 6.1 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,510 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,045, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 24¢/kWh, 1.5 times what TX pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.6 m/s instead of 6.1. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of TX
Cottle County is the 685th 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 Cottle County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.05 m/s and about 2,252 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.25 m/s and 1,212 kWh, so the best month makes 1.9 times the worst. November to March brings in 43% of the year's output in Cottle County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.05 m/s | 1,706 kWh | $273 |
| February | 6.20 m/s | 1,627 kWh | $261 |
| March | 6.54 m/s | 2,014 kWh | $323 |
| April | 7.05 m/s | 2,252 kWh | $361 |
| May | 6.46 m/s | 1,964 kWh | $315 |
| June | 6.27 m/s | 1,787 kWh | $286 |
| July | 5.54 m/s | 1,384 kWh | $222 |
| August | 5.25 m/s | 1,212 kWh | $194 |
| September | 5.48 m/s | 1,308 kWh | $210 |
| October | 6.14 m/s | 1,763 kWh | $283 |
| November | 6.32 m/s | 1,814 kWh | $291 |
| December | 6.02 m/s | 1,684 kWh | $270 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Cottle County averages 4.75 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.86 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 16,519 to 26,036 kWh a year, 58% 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 | 5.57 m/s | 16,519 kWh | 38 years |
| 30 m | 6.11 m/s | 20,489 kWh | 30 years |
| 40 m | 6.52 m/s | 23,552 kWh | 27 years |
| 50 m | 6.86 m/s | 26,036 kWh | 24 years |
Counties around Cottle County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Motley County, averages 6.28 m/s.
- Foard County, TX: 6.1 m/s, 20,446 kWh, payback 31 years (28 mi)
- Motley County, TX: 6.28 m/s, 21,781 kWh, payback 29 years (30 mi)
- Childress County, TX: 6.04 m/s, 20,001 kWh, payback 31 years (30 mi)
- Hall County, TX: 6.1 m/s, 20,446 kWh, payback 31 years (30 mi)
- King County, TX: 6.14 m/s, 20,742 kWh, payback 30 years (33 mi)
- Hardeman County, TX: 6.04 m/s, 20,001 kWh, payback 31 years (33 mi)
Sun versus wind in Cottle County
Cottle County gets 5.17 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,510 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,045. 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.