Wind Turbine Payback in Curry County, NM
Wind turbine payback in Curry 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 Curry County, NM averages 6.41 m/s (14.3 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 22,743 kWh a year, worth $3,489 at NM's 15.34¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 29 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Curry County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Curry County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.8 m/s at the hub against 6.41 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,615 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,274, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 22¢/kWh, 1.4 times what NM pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.8 m/s instead of 6.41. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of NM
Curry County is the 309th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in NM is Union County at 6.75 m/s, payback 26 years.
Month by month in Curry County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.34 m/s and about 2,422 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.29 m/s and 1,235 kWh, so the best month makes 2.0 times the worst. November to March brings in 46% of the year's output in Curry County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.57 m/s | 2,032 kWh | $312 |
| February | 6.82 m/s | 1,975 kWh | $303 |
| March | 6.96 m/s | 2,274 kWh | $349 |
| April | 7.34 m/s | 2,422 kWh | $372 |
| May | 6.62 m/s | 2,060 kWh | $316 |
| June | 6.38 m/s | 1,854 kWh | $284 |
| July | 5.51 m/s | 1,370 kWh | $210 |
| August | 5.29 m/s | 1,235 kWh | $189 |
| September | 5.82 m/s | 1,513 kWh | $232 |
| October | 6.35 m/s | 1,893 kWh | $290 |
| November | 6.67 m/s | 2,026 kWh | $311 |
| December | 6.64 m/s | 2,077 kWh | $319 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Curry County averages 4.98 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.21 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.230, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 18,521 to 28,531 kWh a year, 54% 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 | 5.84 m/s | 18,521 kWh | 35 years |
| 30 m | 6.41 m/s | 22,749 kWh | 29 years |
| 40 m | 6.85 m/s | 25,959 kWh | 25 years |
| 50 m | 7.21 m/s | 28,531 kWh | 23 years |
Counties around Curry County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Deaf Smith County, averages 6.63 m/s.
- Parmer County, TX: 6.39 m/s, 22,595 kWh, payback 28 years (32 mi)
- Quay County, NM: 6.32 m/s, 22,077 kWh, payback 30 years (39 mi)
- Roosevelt County, NM: 6.01 m/s, 19,778 kWh, payback 33 years (39 mi)
- Bailey County, TX: 6.28 m/s, 21,781 kWh, payback 29 years (46 mi)
- Deaf Smith County, TX: 6.63 m/s, 24,362 kWh, payback 26 years (49 mi)
- De Baca County, NM: 6.1 m/s, 20,446 kWh, payback 32 years (60 mi)
Sun versus wind in Curry County
Curry County gets 5.53 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,615 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,274. 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.