Wind Turbine Payback in Ellis County, TX
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, TX averages 5.68 m/s (12.7 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 17,345 kWh a year, worth $2,780 at TX's 16.03¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 36 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, 7.6 m/s at the hub against 5.68 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,375 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,735, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 29¢/kWh, 1.8 times what TX pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.6 m/s instead of 5.68. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of TX
Ellis County is the 1,140th 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 Ellis County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.60 m/s and about 1,984 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.57 m/s and 831 kWh, so the best month makes 2.4 times the worst. November to March brings in 49% of the year's output in Ellis County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.07 m/s | 1,717 kWh | $275 |
| February | 6.27 m/s | 1,666 kWh | $267 |
| March | 6.46 m/s | 1,962 kWh | $315 |
| April | 6.60 m/s | 1,984 kWh | $318 |
| May | 5.89 m/s | 1,605 kWh | $257 |
| June | 5.33 m/s | 1,215 kWh | $195 |
| July | 4.83 m/s | 969 kWh | $155 |
| August | 4.57 m/s | 831 kWh | $133 |
| September | 4.68 m/s | 858 kWh | $138 |
| October | 5.53 m/s | 1,380 kWh | $221 |
| November | 6.03 m/s | 1,640 kWh | $263 |
| December | 5.99 m/s | 1,666 kWh | $267 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Ellis County averages 4.36 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.42 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.240, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 13,578 to 22,817 kWh a year, 68% 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 | 5.15 m/s | 13,578 kWh | 46 years |
| 30 m | 5.68 m/s | 17,340 kWh | 36 years |
| 40 m | 6.09 m/s | 20,336 kWh | 31 years |
| 50 m | 6.42 m/s | 22,817 kWh | 27 years |
Counties around Ellis County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Tarrant County, averages 5.82 m/s.
- Navarro County, TX: 5.54 m/s, 16,326 kWh, payback 38 years (28 mi)
- Dallas County, TX: 5.77 m/s, 18,006 kWh, payback 35 years (29 mi)
- Hill County, TX: 5.62 m/s, 16,907 kWh, payback 37 years (32 mi)
- Johnson County, TX: 5.79 m/s, 18,153 kWh, payback 34 years (33 mi)
- Kaufman County, TX: 5.62 m/s, 16,907 kWh, payback 37 years (34 mi)
- Tarrant County, TX: 5.82 m/s, 18,374 kWh, payback 34 years (41 mi)
Sun versus wind in Ellis County
Ellis County gets 4.71 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,375 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,735. 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.