Wind Turbine Payback in Hudspeth County, TX
Wind turbine payback in Hudspeth 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 Hudspeth County, TX averages 5.39 m/s (12.1 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 15,247 kWh a year, worth $2,444 at TX's 16.03¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 41 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Hudspeth County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Hudspeth County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.6 m/s at the hub against 5.39 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,702 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,525, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 33¢/kWh, 2.0 times what TX pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.6 m/s instead of 5.39. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of TX
Hudspeth County is the 1,288th 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 Hudspeth County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.67 m/s and about 2,024 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.18 m/s and 636 kWh, so the best month makes 3.2 times the worst. November to March brings in 46% of the year's output in Hudspeth County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.44 m/s | 1,325 kWh | $212 |
| February | 5.97 m/s | 1,493 kWh | $239 |
| March | 6.16 m/s | 1,777 kWh | $285 |
| April | 6.67 m/s | 2,024 kWh | $324 |
| May | 5.99 m/s | 1,670 kWh | $268 |
| June | 5.26 m/s | 1,177 kWh | $189 |
| July | 4.51 m/s | 797 kWh | $128 |
| August | 4.18 m/s | 636 kWh | $102 |
| September | 4.68 m/s | 857 kWh | $137 |
| October | 5.13 m/s | 1,142 kWh | $183 |
| November | 5.41 m/s | 1,266 kWh | $203 |
| December | 5.40 m/s | 1,303 kWh | $209 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Hudspeth County averages 4.26 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.02 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.215, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 12,156 to 19,852 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 | 4.94 m/s | 12,156 kWh | 51 years |
| 30 m | 5.39 m/s | 15,275 kWh | 41 years |
| 40 m | 5.74 m/s | 17,770 kWh | 35 years |
| 50 m | 6.02 m/s | 19,852 kWh | 31 years |
Counties around Hudspeth County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Culberson County, averages 5.63 m/s.
- Culberson County, TX: 5.63 m/s, 16,980 kWh, payback 37 years (50 mi)
- El Paso County, TX: 5.01 m/s, 12,602 kWh, payback 50 years (55 mi)
- Otero County, NM: 5.15 m/s, 13,560 kWh, payback 48 years (83 mi)
- Jeff Davis County, TX: 5.26 m/s, 14,327 kWh, payback 44 years (90 mi)
- Eddy County, NM: 5.59 m/s, 16,689 kWh, payback 39 years (94 mi)
- Reeves County, TX: 5.48 m/s, 15,893 kWh, payback 39 years (99 mi)
Sun versus wind in Hudspeth County
Hudspeth County gets 5.83 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,702 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,525. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.1 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.