Wind Turbine Payback in Falls County, TX
Wind turbine payback in Falls 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 Falls County, TX averages 5.52 m/s (12.3 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 16,181 kWh a year, worth $2,594 at TX's 16.03¢/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 Falls County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Falls County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.6 m/s at the hub against 5.52 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,381 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,618, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 31¢/kWh, 1.9 times what TX pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.6 m/s instead of 5.52. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of TX
Falls County is the 1,207th 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 Falls County
March is the strongest month here, at 6.25 m/s and about 1,831 kWh. September is the weakest, 4.50 m/s and 769 kWh, so the best month makes 2.4 times the worst. November to March brings in 50% of the year's output in Falls County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.94 m/s | 1,637 kWh | $262 |
| February | 6.15 m/s | 1,599 kWh | $256 |
| March | 6.25 m/s | 1,831 kWh | $294 |
| April | 6.34 m/s | 1,826 kWh | $293 |
| May | 5.75 m/s | 1,515 kWh | $243 |
| June | 5.12 m/s | 1,098 kWh | $176 |
| July | 4.74 m/s | 920 kWh | $147 |
| August | 4.50 m/s | 794 kWh | $127 |
| September | 4.50 m/s | 769 kWh | $123 |
| October | 5.33 m/s | 1,260 kWh | $202 |
| November | 5.80 m/s | 1,498 kWh | $240 |
| December | 5.86 m/s | 1,587 kWh | $254 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Falls County averages 4.22 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.25 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.244, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 12,520 to 21,558 kWh a year, 72% 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 m/s | 12,520 kWh | 50 years |
| 30 m | 5.52 m/s | 16,164 kWh | 39 years |
| 40 m | 5.92 m/s | 19,103 kWh | 33 years |
| 50 m | 6.25 m/s | 21,558 kWh | 29 years |
Counties around Falls County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, McLennan County, averages 5.69 m/s.
- McLennan County, TX: 5.69 m/s, 17,419 kWh, payback 36 years (26 mi)
- Limestone County, TX: 5.52 m/s, 16,181 kWh, payback 39 years (29 mi)
- Robertson County, TX: 5.27 m/s, 14,397 kWh, payback 43 years (29 mi)
- Milam County, TX: 5.43 m/s, 15,534 kWh, payback 40 years (32 mi)
- Bell County, TX: 5.61 m/s, 16,834 kWh, payback 37 years (35 mi)
- Hill County, TX: 5.62 m/s, 16,907 kWh, payback 37 years (52 mi)
Sun versus wind in Falls County
Falls County gets 4.73 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,381 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,618. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.2 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.