Wind Turbine Payback in Erath County, TX
Wind turbine payback in Erath 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 Erath County, TX averages 5.9 m/s (13.2 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 18,964 kWh a year, worth $3,040 at TX's 16.03¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 33 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Erath County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Erath County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.6 m/s at the hub against 5.9 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,454 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,896, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 26¢/kWh, 1.6 times what TX pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.6 m/s instead of 5.9. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of TX
Erath County is the 988th 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 Erath County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.86 m/s and about 2,139 kWh. September is the weakest, 4.85 m/s and 950 kWh, so the best month makes 2.3 times the worst. November to March brings in 48% of the year's output in Erath County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.23 m/s | 1,818 kWh | $291 |
| February | 6.41 m/s | 1,743 kWh | $279 |
| March | 6.62 m/s | 2,063 kWh | $331 |
| April | 6.86 m/s | 2,139 kWh | $343 |
| May | 6.14 m/s | 1,762 kWh | $282 |
| June | 5.63 m/s | 1,398 kWh | $224 |
| July | 5.09 m/s | 1,118 kWh | $179 |
| August | 4.82 m/s | 962 kWh | $154 |
| September | 4.85 m/s | 950 kWh | $152 |
| October | 5.78 m/s | 1,533 kWh | $246 |
| November | 6.22 m/s | 1,754 kWh | $281 |
| December | 6.18 m/s | 1,784 kWh | $286 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Erath County averages 4.56 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.65 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.234, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 15,081 to 24,509 kWh a year, 63% 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 | 5.37 m/s | 15,081 kWh | 41 years |
| 30 m | 5.9 m/s | 18,970 kWh | 33 years |
| 40 m | 6.31 m/s | 22,015 kWh | 28 years |
| 50 m | 6.65 m/s | 24,509 kWh | 26 years |
Counties around Erath County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Eastland County, averages 6.13 m/s.
- Hood County, TX: 5.91 m/s, 19,038 kWh, payback 33 years (26 mi)
- Somervell County, TX: 5.75 m/s, 17,859 kWh, payback 35 years (26 mi)
- Comanche County, TX: 6.05 m/s, 20,075 kWh, payback 31 years (28 mi)
- Palo Pinto County, TX: 5.94 m/s, 19,260 kWh, payback 32 years (36 mi)
- Eastland County, TX: 6.13 m/s, 20,668 kWh, payback 30 years (36 mi)
- Hamilton County, TX: 5.82 m/s, 18,374 kWh, payback 34 years (37 mi)
Sun versus wind in Erath County
Erath County gets 4.98 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,454 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,896. 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.