Wind Turbine Payback in Culberson County, TX
Wind turbine payback in Culberson 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 Culberson County, TX averages 5.63 m/s (12.6 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 16,980 kWh a year, worth $2,722 at TX's 16.03¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 37 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Culberson County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Culberson County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.6 m/s at the hub against 5.63 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,664 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,698, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 29¢/kWh, 1.8 times what TX pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.6 m/s instead of 5.63. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of TX
Culberson County is the 1,151st 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 Culberson County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.73 m/s and about 2,065 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.41 m/s and 750 kWh, so the best month makes 2.8 times the worst. November to March brings in 49% of the year's output in Culberson County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.00 m/s | 1,674 kWh | $268 |
| February | 6.34 m/s | 1,705 kWh | $273 |
| March | 6.37 m/s | 1,905 kWh | $305 |
| April | 6.73 m/s | 2,065 kWh | $331 |
| May | 6.00 m/s | 1,674 kWh | $268 |
| June | 5.32 m/s | 1,212 kWh | $194 |
| July | 4.72 m/s | 908 kWh | $146 |
| August | 4.41 m/s | 750 kWh | $120 |
| September | 4.67 m/s | 856 kWh | $137 |
| October | 5.30 m/s | 1,242 kWh | $199 |
| November | 5.75 m/s | 1,467 kWh | $235 |
| December | 6.07 m/s | 1,719 kWh | $276 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Culberson County averages 4.44 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.29 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.216, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 13,633 to 21,855 kWh a year, 60% 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 | 5.16 m/s | 13,633 kWh | 46 years |
| 30 m | 5.63 m/s | 17,001 kWh | 37 years |
| 40 m | 5.99 m/s | 19,660 kWh | 32 years |
| 50 m | 6.29 m/s | 21,855 kWh | 29 years |
Counties around Culberson County
None of the 6 closest counties is windier than Culberson County.
- Reeves County, TX: 5.48 m/s, 15,893 kWh, payback 39 years (49 mi)
- Hudspeth County, TX: 5.39 m/s, 15,247 kWh, payback 41 years (50 mi)
- Jeff Davis County, TX: 5.26 m/s, 14,327 kWh, payback 44 years (60 mi)
- Loving County, TX: 5.4 m/s, 15,319 kWh, payback 41 years (63 mi)
- Eddy County, NM: 5.59 m/s, 16,689 kWh, payback 39 years (71 mi)
- Ward County, TX: 5.53 m/s, 16,254 kWh, payback 38 years (84 mi)
Sun versus wind in Culberson County
Culberson County gets 5.7 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,664 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,698. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.0 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.