Wind Turbine Payback in Lamar County, TX
Wind turbine payback in Lamar 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 Lamar County, TX averages 5.37 m/s (12 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 15,105 kWh a year, worth $2,421 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 Lamar County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Lamar County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.6 m/s at the hub against 5.37 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,340 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,511, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 33¢/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 5.37. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of TX
Lamar County is the 1,295th 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 Lamar County
March is the strongest month here, at 6.20 m/s and about 1,798 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.24 m/s and 666 kWh, so the best month makes 2.7 times the worst. November to March brings in 51% of the year's output in Lamar County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.80 m/s | 1,550 kWh | $248 |
| February | 5.97 m/s | 1,494 kWh | $239 |
| March | 6.20 m/s | 1,798 kWh | $288 |
| April | 6.28 m/s | 1,788 kWh | $287 |
| May | 5.55 m/s | 1,392 kWh | $223 |
| June | 4.85 m/s | 951 kWh | $152 |
| July | 4.34 m/s | 712 kWh | $114 |
| August | 4.24 m/s | 666 kWh | $107 |
| September | 4.54 m/s | 787 kWh | $126 |
| October | 5.28 m/s | 1,232 kWh | $197 |
| November | 5.81 m/s | 1,505 kWh | $241 |
| December | 5.71 m/s | 1,495 kWh | $240 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Lamar County averages 4.06 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.12 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.255, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 11,503 to 20,594 kWh a year, 79% 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 | 4.84 m/s | 11,503 kWh | 54 years |
| 30 m | 5.37 m/s | 15,123 kWh | 41 years |
| 40 m | 5.78 m/s | 18,090 kWh | 35 years |
| 50 m | 6.12 m/s | 20,594 kWh | 30 years |
Counties around Lamar County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Fannin County, averages 5.72 m/s.
- Delta County, TX: 5.37 m/s, 15,105 kWh, payback 41 years (20 mi)
- Choctaw County, OK: 4.06 m/s, 6,883 kWh, payback over 100 years (25 mi)
- Red River County, TX: 5.04 m/s, 12,805 kWh, payback 49 years (30 mi)
- Fannin County, TX: 5.72 m/s, 17,638 kWh, payback 35 years (31 mi)
- Hopkins County, TX: 5.53 m/s, 16,254 kWh, payback 38 years (36 mi)
- Franklin County, TX: 4.89 m/s, 11,800 kWh, payback 53 years (40 mi)
Sun versus wind in Lamar County
Lamar County gets 4.59 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,340 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,511. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.1 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.