Wind Turbine Payback in Kiowa County, OK
Wind turbine payback in Kiowa 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 Kiowa County, OK averages 6.26 m/s (14 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 21,632 kWh a year, worth $2,987 at OK's 13.81¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 34 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Kiowa County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Kiowa County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.4 m/s at the hub against 6.26 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,442 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,163, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 23¢/kWh, 1.7 times what OK pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.4 m/s instead of 6.26. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of OK
Kiowa County is the 520th 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 Kiowa County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.23 m/s and about 2,358 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.35 m/s and 1,269 kWh, so the best month makes 1.9 times the worst. November to March brings in 43% of the year's output in Kiowa County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.17 m/s | 1,783 kWh | $246 |
| February | 6.34 m/s | 1,707 kWh | $236 |
| March | 6.79 m/s | 2,167 kWh | $299 |
| April | 7.23 m/s | 2,358 kWh | $326 |
| May | 6.59 m/s | 2,045 kWh | $282 |
| June | 6.37 m/s | 1,845 kWh | $255 |
| July | 5.50 m/s | 1,361 kWh | $188 |
| August | 5.35 m/s | 1,269 kWh | $175 |
| September | 5.69 m/s | 1,434 kWh | $198 |
| October | 6.41 m/s | 1,929 kWh | $266 |
| November | 6.57 m/s | 1,963 kWh | $271 |
| December | 6.17 m/s | 1,783 kWh | $246 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Kiowa County averages 4.87 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.04 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.229, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 17,547 to 27,328 kWh a year, 56% 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 | 5.71 m/s | 17,547 kWh | 41 years |
| 30 m | 6.26 m/s | 21,653 kWh | 33 years |
| 40 m | 6.69 m/s | 24,796 kWh | 29 years |
| 50 m | 7.04 m/s | 27,328 kWh | 27 years |
Counties around Kiowa County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Washita County, averages 6.45 m/s.
- Washita County, OK: 6.45 m/s, 23,038 kWh, payback 31 years (25 mi)
- Greer County, OK: 6.23 m/s, 21,410 kWh, payback 34 years (32 mi)
- Jackson County, OK: 6.07 m/s, 20,223 kWh, payback 36 years (33 mi)
- Comanche County, OK: 6.07 m/s, 20,223 kWh, payback 36 years (34 mi)
- Caddo County, OK: 6.25 m/s, 21,558 kWh, payback 34 years (38 mi)
- Tillman County, OK: 6.07 m/s, 20,223 kWh, payback 36 years (38 mi)
Sun versus wind in Kiowa County
Kiowa County gets 4.94 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,442 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,163. 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.