Wind Turbine Payback in Hidalgo County, NM
Wind turbine payback in Hidalgo 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 Hidalgo County, NM averages 5.18 m/s (11.6 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 13,768 kWh a year, worth $2,112 at NM's 15.34¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 47 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Hidalgo County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Hidalgo County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.8 m/s at the hub against 5.18 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,720 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,377, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 36¢/kWh, 2.4 times what NM pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.8 m/s instead of 5.18. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of NM
Hidalgo County is the 1,389th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in NM is Union County at 6.75 m/s, payback 26 years.
Month by month in Hidalgo County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.19 m/s and about 1,738 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.01 m/s and 562 kWh, so the best month makes 3.1 times the worst. November to March brings in 45% of the year's output in Hidalgo County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.15 m/s | 1,154 kWh | $177 |
| February | 5.55 m/s | 1,255 kWh | $193 |
| March | 5.76 m/s | 1,522 kWh | $233 |
| April | 6.19 m/s | 1,738 kWh | $267 |
| May | 5.88 m/s | 1,600 kWh | $245 |
| June | 5.31 m/s | 1,204 kWh | $185 |
| July | 4.40 m/s | 743 kWh | $114 |
| August | 4.01 m/s | 562 kWh | $86 |
| September | 4.59 m/s | 810 kWh | $124 |
| October | 4.95 m/s | 1,036 kWh | $159 |
| November | 5.29 m/s | 1,194 kWh | $183 |
| December | 5.16 m/s | 1,159 kWh | $178 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Hidalgo County averages 4.02 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.83 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.231, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 10,685 to 18,447 kWh a year, 73% 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 | 4.72 m/s | 10,685 kWh | 61 years |
| 30 m | 5.18 m/s | 13,775 kWh | 47 years |
| 40 m | 5.54 m/s | 16,305 kWh | 40 years |
| 50 m | 5.83 m/s | 18,447 kWh | 35 years |
Counties around Hidalgo County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Grant County, averages 5.52 m/s.
- Cochise County, AZ: 4.69 m/s, 10,508 kWh, payback 62 years (60 mi)
- Grant County, NM: 5.52 m/s, 16,181 kWh, payback 40 years (62 mi)
- Luna County, NM: 5.33 m/s, 14,821 kWh, payback 44 years (62 mi)
- Greenlee County, AZ: 4.17 m/s, 7,461 kWh, payback 87 years (97 mi)
- Graham County, AZ: 4.09 m/s, 7,038 kWh, payback 93 years (97 mi)
- Doña Ana County, NM: 5.01 m/s, 12,602 kWh, payback 52 years (116 mi)
Sun versus wind in Hidalgo County
Hidalgo County gets 5.89 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,720 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,377. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.2 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.