Wind Turbine Payback in Cotton County, OK
Wind turbine payback in Cotton 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 Cotton County, OK averages 6.06 m/s (13.6 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 20,149 kWh a year, worth $2,783 at OK's 13.81¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 36 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Cotton County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Cotton County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.4 m/s at the hub against 6.06 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,442 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,015, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 25¢/kWh, 1.8 times what OK pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.4 m/s instead of 6.06. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of OK
Cotton County is the 747th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in OK is Cimarron County at 6.82 m/s, payback 28 years.
Month by month in Cotton County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.04 m/s and about 2,245 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.04 m/s and 1,090 kWh, so the best month makes 2.1 times the worst. November to March brings in 45% of the year's output in Cotton County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.13 m/s | 1,752 kWh | $242 |
| February | 6.31 m/s | 1,689 kWh | $233 |
| March | 6.69 m/s | 2,108 kWh | $291 |
| April | 7.04 m/s | 2,245 kWh | $310 |
| May | 6.36 m/s | 1,903 kWh | $263 |
| June | 5.97 m/s | 1,599 kWh | $221 |
| July | 5.17 m/s | 1,162 kWh | $160 |
| August | 5.04 m/s | 1,090 kWh | $151 |
| September | 5.35 m/s | 1,232 kWh | $170 |
| October | 6.15 m/s | 1,769 kWh | $244 |
| November | 6.44 m/s | 1,890 kWh | $261 |
| December | 6.07 m/s | 1,719 kWh | $237 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Cotton County averages 4.68 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.84 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 16,108 to 25,892 kWh a year, 61% 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 | 5.51 m/s | 16,108 kWh | 45 years |
| 30 m | 6.06 m/s | 20,172 kWh | 36 years |
| 40 m | 6.49 m/s | 23,327 kWh | 31 years |
| 50 m | 6.84 m/s | 25,892 kWh | 28 years |
Counties around Cotton County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Comanche County, averages 6.07 m/s.
- Comanche County, OK: 6.07 m/s, 20,223 kWh, payback 36 years (26 mi)
- Wichita County, TX: 5.95 m/s, 19,334 kWh, payback 32 years (28 mi)
- Stephens County, OK: 6.06 m/s, 20,149 kWh, payback 36 years (32 mi)
- Tillman County, OK: 6.07 m/s, 20,223 kWh, payback 36 years (32 mi)
- Jefferson County, OK: 5.94 m/s, 19,260 kWh, payback 38 years (33 mi)
- Clay County, TX: 5.94 m/s, 19,260 kWh, payback 32 years (36 mi)
Sun versus wind in Cotton County
Cotton County gets 4.94 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,442 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,015. 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.