Wind Turbine Payback in Deaf Smith County, TX
Wind turbine payback in Deaf Smith 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 Deaf Smith County, TX averages 6.63 m/s (14.8 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 24,362 kWh a year, worth $3,905 at TX's 16.03¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 26 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Deaf Smith County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Deaf Smith County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.6 m/s at the hub against 6.63 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,594 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,436, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 21¢/kWh, 1.3 times what TX pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.6 m/s instead of 6.63. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of TX
Deaf Smith County is the 99th 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 Deaf Smith County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.51 m/s and about 2,514 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.64 m/s and 1,448 kWh, so the best month makes 1.7 times the worst. November to March brings in 44% of the year's output in Deaf Smith County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.66 m/s | 2,087 kWh | $335 |
| February | 6.92 m/s | 2,029 kWh | $325 |
| March | 7.11 m/s | 2,366 kWh | $379 |
| April | 7.51 m/s | 2,514 kWh | $403 |
| May | 6.79 m/s | 2,170 kWh | $348 |
| June | 6.72 m/s | 2,057 kWh | $330 |
| July | 5.85 m/s | 1,582 kWh | $254 |
| August | 5.64 m/s | 1,448 kWh | $232 |
| September | 6.15 m/s | 1,710 kWh | $274 |
| October | 6.61 m/s | 2,059 kWh | $330 |
| November | 6.87 m/s | 2,147 kWh | $344 |
| December | 6.75 m/s | 2,142 kWh | $343 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Deaf Smith County averages 5.21 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.42 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.220, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 20,189 to 29,989 kWh a year, 49% 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 | 6.07 m/s | 20,189 kWh | 31 years |
| 30 m | 6.63 m/s | 24,372 kWh | 26 years |
| 40 m | 7.06 m/s | 27,503 kWh | 23 years |
| 50 m | 7.42 m/s | 29,989 kWh | 21 years |
Counties around Deaf Smith County
None of the 6 closest counties is windier than Deaf Smith County.
- Parmer County, TX: 6.39 m/s, 22,595 kWh, payback 28 years (30 mi)
- Oldham County, TX: 6.48 m/s, 23,260 kWh, payback 27 years (32 mi)
- Castro County, TX: 6.39 m/s, 22,595 kWh, payback 28 years (34 mi)
- Randall County, TX: 6.6 m/s, 24,142 kWh, payback 26 years (40 mi)
- Curry County, NM: 6.41 m/s, 22,743 kWh, payback 29 years (49 mi)
- Potter County, TX: 6.55 m/s, 23,775 kWh, payback 26 years (51 mi)
Sun versus wind in Deaf Smith County
Deaf Smith County gets 5.46 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,594 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,436. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.5 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.