Wind Turbine Payback in Ellis County, OK
Wind turbine payback in Ellis 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 Ellis County, OK averages 6.76 m/s (15.1 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 25,311 kWh a year, worth $3,496 at OK's 13.81¢/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 Ellis County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Ellis County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.4 m/s at the hub against 6.76 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,442 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,531, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 20¢/kWh, 1.4 times what OK pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.4 m/s instead of 6.76. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of OK
Ellis County is the 40th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in OK is Cimarron County at 6.82 m/s, payback 28 years.
Month by month in Ellis County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.72 m/s and about 2,629 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.88 m/s and 1,599 kWh, so the best month makes 1.6 times the worst. November to March brings in 42% of the year's output in Ellis County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.65 m/s | 2,084 kWh | $288 |
| February | 6.75 m/s | 1,938 kWh | $268 |
| March | 7.22 m/s | 2,429 kWh | $335 |
| April | 7.72 m/s | 2,629 kWh | $363 |
| May | 6.97 m/s | 2,278 kWh | $315 |
| June | 7.00 m/s | 2,225 kWh | $307 |
| July | 6.06 m/s | 1,712 kWh | $236 |
| August | 5.88 m/s | 1,599 kWh | $221 |
| September | 6.47 m/s | 1,908 kWh | $263 |
| October | 6.85 m/s | 2,206 kWh | $305 |
| November | 6.95 m/s | 2,194 kWh | $303 |
| December | 6.68 m/s | 2,101 kWh | $290 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Ellis County averages 5.38 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.52 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.208, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 21,299 to 30,672 kWh a year, 44% 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 | 6.22 m/s | 21,299 kWh | 34 years |
| 30 m | 6.76 m/s | 25,326 kWh | 29 years |
| 40 m | 7.18 m/s | 28,313 kWh | 26 years |
| 50 m | 7.52 m/s | 30,672 kWh | 24 years |
Counties around Ellis County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Lipscomb County, averages 6.78 m/s.
- Lipscomb County, TX: 6.78 m/s, 25,457 kWh, payback 25 years (29 mi)
- Woodward County, OK: 6.69 m/s, 24,801 kWh, payback 29 years (30 mi)
- Roger Mills County, OK: 6.56 m/s, 23,849 kWh, payback 30 years (36 mi)
- Harper County, OK: 6.38 m/s, 22,521 kWh, payback 32 years (40 mi)
- Hemphill County, TX: 6.76 m/s, 25,311 kWh, payback 25 years (41 mi)
- Dewey County, OK: 6.62 m/s, 24,289 kWh, payback 30 years (44 mi)
Sun versus wind in Ellis County
Ellis County gets 4.94 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,442 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,531. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.8 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.