Wind Turbine Payback in Ector County, TX
Wind turbine payback in Ector 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 Ector County, TX averages 6.12 m/s (13.7 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 20,594 kWh a year, worth $3,301 at TX's 16.03¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 30 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Ector County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Ector County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.6 m/s at the hub against 6.12 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,629 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,059, 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 6.12. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of TX
Ector County is the 664th 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 Ector County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.90 m/s and about 2,163 kWh. September is the weakest, 5.60 m/s and 1,378 kWh, so the best month makes 1.6 times the worst. November to March brings in 42% of the year's output in Ector County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.99 m/s | 1,664 kWh | $267 |
| February | 6.29 m/s | 1,676 kWh | $269 |
| March | 6.53 m/s | 2,008 kWh | $322 |
| April | 6.90 m/s | 2,163 kWh | $347 |
| May | 6.55 m/s | 2,019 kWh | $324 |
| June | 6.43 m/s | 1,883 kWh | $302 |
| July | 5.82 m/s | 1,563 kWh | $251 |
| August | 5.55 m/s | 1,390 kWh | $223 |
| September | 5.60 m/s | 1,378 kWh | $221 |
| October | 5.95 m/s | 1,642 kWh | $263 |
| November | 5.92 m/s | 1,572 kWh | $252 |
| December | 5.92 m/s | 1,625 kWh | $260 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Ector County averages 4.83 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.83 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.215, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 16,825 to 25,819 kWh a year, 53% 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 | 5.61 m/s | 16,825 kWh | 37 years |
| 30 m | 6.12 m/s | 20,591 kWh | 30 years |
| 40 m | 6.51 m/s | 23,481 kWh | 27 years |
| 50 m | 6.83 m/s | 25,819 kWh | 24 years |
Counties around Ector County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Midland County, averages 6.3 m/s.
- Winkler County, TX: 5.77 m/s, 18,006 kWh, payback 35 years (30 mi)
- Crane County, TX: 6.06 m/s, 20,149 kWh, payback 31 years (31 mi)
- Andrews County, TX: 6.11 m/s, 20,520 kWh, payback 30 years (31 mi)
- Midland County, TX: 6.3 m/s, 21,929 kWh, payback 28 years (32 mi)
- Ward County, TX: 5.53 m/s, 16,254 kWh, payback 38 years (41 mi)
- Martin County, TX: 6.22 m/s, 21,336 kWh, payback 29 years (46 mi)
Sun versus wind in Ector County
Ector County gets 5.58 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,629 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,059. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.3 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.