Wind Turbine Payback in Hughes County, OK
Wind turbine payback in Hughes 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 Hughes County, OK averages 6 m/s (13.4 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 19,704 kWh a year, worth $2,721 at OK's 13.81¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 37 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Hughes County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Hughes County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.4 m/s at the hub against 6 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,334 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,970, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 25¢/kWh, 1.8 times what OK pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.4 m/s instead of 6. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of OK
Hughes County is the 840th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in OK is Cimarron County at 6.82 m/s, payback 28 years.
Month by month in Hughes County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.02 m/s and about 2,233 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.77 m/s and 934 kWh, so the best month makes 2.4 times the worst. November to March brings in 49% of the year's output in Hughes County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.38 m/s | 1,912 kWh | $264 |
| February | 6.49 m/s | 1,787 kWh | $247 |
| March | 6.84 m/s | 2,199 kWh | $304 |
| April | 7.02 m/s | 2,233 kWh | $308 |
| May | 6.18 m/s | 1,789 kWh | $247 |
| June | 5.58 m/s | 1,367 kWh | $189 |
| July | 4.84 m/s | 973 kWh | $134 |
| August | 4.77 m/s | 934 kWh | $129 |
| September | 5.09 m/s | 1,083 kWh | $150 |
| October | 6.05 m/s | 1,706 kWh | $236 |
| November | 6.56 m/s | 1,958 kWh | $270 |
| December | 6.26 m/s | 1,840 kWh | $254 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Hughes County averages 4.62 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.77 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.237, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 15,666 to 25,384 kWh a year, 62% 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 | 5.45 m/s | 15,666 kWh | 46 years |
| 30 m | 6 m/s | 19,690 kWh | 37 years |
| 40 m | 6.42 m/s | 22,826 kWh | 32 years |
| 50 m | 6.77 m/s | 25,384 kWh | 29 years |
Counties around Hughes County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Seminole County, averages 6.21 m/s.
- Seminole County, OK: 6.21 m/s, 21,262 kWh, payback 34 years (21 mi)
- Okfuskee County, OK: 6.11 m/s, 20,520 kWh, payback 35 years (29 mi)
- Pittsburg County, OK: 5.24 m/s, 14,186 kWh, payback 51 years (30 mi)
- Coal County, OK: 5.49 m/s, 15,965 kWh, payback 45 years (33 mi)
- Pontotoc County, OK: 6.07 m/s, 20,223 kWh, payback 36 years (34 mi)
- McIntosh County, OK: 5.63 m/s, 16,980 kWh, payback 43 years (39 mi)
Sun versus wind in Hughes County
Hughes County gets 4.57 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,334 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,970. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.5 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.