Wind Turbine Payback in Frio County, TX
Wind turbine payback in Frio 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 Frio County, TX averages 5.29 m/s (11.8 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 14,538 kWh a year, worth $2,330 at TX's 16.03¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 43 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Frio County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Frio County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.6 m/s at the hub against 5.29 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,457 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,454, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 34¢/kWh, 2.1 times what TX pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.6 m/s instead of 5.29. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of TX
Frio County is the 1,328th 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 Frio County
April is the strongest month here, at 5.93 m/s and about 1,577 kWh. September is the weakest, 4.75 m/s and 894 kWh, so the best month makes 1.8 times the worst. November to March brings in 40% of the year's output in Frio County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.00 m/s | 1,063 kWh | $170 |
| February | 5.29 m/s | 1,115 kWh | $179 |
| March | 5.68 m/s | 1,474 kWh | $236 |
| April | 5.93 m/s | 1,577 kWh | $253 |
| May | 5.84 m/s | 1,574 kWh | $252 |
| June | 5.55 m/s | 1,347 kWh | $216 |
| July | 5.28 m/s | 1,230 kWh | $197 |
| August | 4.95 m/s | 1,038 kWh | $166 |
| September | 4.75 m/s | 894 kWh | $143 |
| October | 5.12 m/s | 1,135 kWh | $182 |
| November | 5.12 m/s | 1,098 kWh | $176 |
| December | 4.94 m/s | 1,032 kWh | $165 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Frio County averages 4.11 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.95 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.230, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 11,337 to 19,334 kWh a year, 71% 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 | 4.82 m/s | 11,337 kWh | 55 years |
| 30 m | 5.29 m/s | 14,541 kWh | 43 years |
| 40 m | 5.65 m/s | 17,143 kWh | 36 years |
| 50 m | 5.95 m/s | 19,334 kWh | 32 years |
Counties around Frio County
6 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, McMullen County, averages 5.49 m/s.
- Medina County, TX: 5.43 m/s, 15,534 kWh, payback 40 years (33 mi)
- Atascosa County, TX: 5.31 m/s, 14,679 kWh, payback 43 years (35 mi)
- La Salle County, TX: 5.41 m/s, 15,390 kWh, payback 41 years (36 mi)
- Zavala County, TX: 5.32 m/s, 14,750 kWh, payback 42 years (39 mi)
- McMullen County, TX: 5.49 m/s, 15,965 kWh, payback 39 years (46 mi)
- Dimmit County, TX: 5.36 m/s, 15,034 kWh, payback 42 years (50 mi)
Sun versus wind in Frio County
Frio County gets 4.99 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,457 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,454. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.0 times as much here as the turbine. 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.