Wind Turbine Payback in Eddy County, NM
Wind turbine payback in Eddy 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 Eddy County, NM averages 5.59 m/s (12.5 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 16,689 kWh a year, worth $2,560 at NM's 15.34¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 39 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Eddy County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Eddy County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.8 m/s at the hub against 5.59 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,647 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,669, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 30¢/kWh, 2.0 times what NM pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.8 m/s instead of 5.59. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of NM
Eddy County is the 1,174th 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 Eddy County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.77 m/s and about 2,089 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.31 m/s and 697 kWh, so the best month makes 3.0 times the worst. November to March brings in 48% of the year's output in Eddy County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.81 m/s | 1,552 kWh | $238 |
| February | 6.21 m/s | 1,634 kWh | $251 |
| March | 6.32 m/s | 1,876 kWh | $288 |
| April | 6.77 m/s | 2,089 kWh | $320 |
| May | 6.03 m/s | 1,691 kWh | $259 |
| June | 5.45 m/s | 1,289 kWh | $198 |
| July | 4.65 m/s | 872 kWh | $134 |
| August | 4.31 m/s | 697 kWh | $107 |
| September | 4.73 m/s | 886 kWh | $136 |
| October | 5.37 m/s | 1,284 kWh | $197 |
| November | 5.69 m/s | 1,432 kWh | $220 |
| December | 5.82 m/s | 1,563 kWh | $240 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Eddy County averages 4.33 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.3 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.233, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 13,139 to 21,929 kWh a year, 67% 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 | 5.09 m/s | 13,139 kWh | 50 years |
| 30 m | 5.59 m/s | 16,711 kWh | 39 years |
| 40 m | 5.98 m/s | 19,562 kWh | 33 years |
| 50 m | 6.3 m/s | 21,929 kWh | 30 years |
Counties around Eddy County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Lea County, averages 6.16 m/s.
- Lea County, NM: 6.16 m/s, 20,891 kWh, payback 31 years (57 mi)
- Loving County, TX: 5.4 m/s, 15,319 kWh, payback 41 years (61 mi)
- Chaves County, NM: 5.42 m/s, 15,462 kWh, payback 42 years (63 mi)
- Culberson County, TX: 5.63 m/s, 16,980 kWh, payback 37 years (71 mi)
- Otero County, NM: 5.15 m/s, 13,560 kWh, payback 48 years (85 mi)
- Winkler County, TX: 5.77 m/s, 18,006 kWh, payback 35 years (85 mi)
Sun versus wind in Eddy County
Eddy County gets 5.64 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,647 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,669. 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.