Wind Turbine Payback in Latimer County, OK
Wind turbine payback in Latimer 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 Latimer County, OK averages 4 m/s (8.9 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 6,577 kWh a year, worth $908 at OK's 13.81¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of over 100 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Latimer County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Latimer County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.4 m/s at the hub against 4 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,314 kWh a year here against the turbine's 658, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 76¢/kWh, 5.5 times what OK pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.4 m/s instead of 4. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of OK
Latimer County is the 2,058th 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 Latimer County
April is the strongest month here, at 4.73 m/s and about 883 kWh. August is the weakest, 3.18 m/s and 269 kWh, so the best month makes 3.3 times the worst. November to March brings in 51% of the year's output in Latimer County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.26 m/s | 676 kWh | $93 |
| February | 4.37 m/s | 658 kWh | $91 |
| March | 4.62 m/s | 855 kWh | $118 |
| April | 4.73 m/s | 883 kWh | $122 |
| May | 4.14 m/s | 619 kWh | $85 |
| June | 3.66 m/s | 411 kWh | $57 |
| July | 3.18 m/s | 269 kWh | $37 |
| August | 3.18 m/s | 269 kWh | $37 |
| September | 3.45 m/s | 339 kWh | $47 |
| October | 3.98 m/s | 550 kWh | $76 |
| November | 4.29 m/s | 670 kWh | $93 |
| December | 4.15 m/s | 623 kWh | $86 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Latimer County averages 2.68 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.81 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.363, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 4,129 to 11,276 kWh a year, 173% 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 | 3.45 m/s | 4,129 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 4 m/s | 6,557 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 4.44 m/s | 8,957 kWh | 81 years |
| 50 m | 4.81 m/s | 11,276 kWh | 64 years |
Counties around Latimer County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, McIntosh County, averages 5.63 m/s.
- Haskell County, OK: 4 m/s, 6,577 kWh, payback over 100 years (26 mi)
- Pittsburg County, OK: 5.24 m/s, 14,186 kWh, payback 51 years (27 mi)
- Le Flore County, OK: 4 m/s, 6,577 kWh, payback over 100 years (33 mi)
- Pushmataha County, OK: 4.18 m/s, 7,515 kWh, payback 96 years (35 mi)
- McIntosh County, OK: 5.63 m/s, 16,980 kWh, payback 43 years (41 mi)
- Muskogee County, OK: 5.63 m/s, 16,980 kWh, payback 43 years (52 mi)
Sun versus wind in Latimer County
Latimer County gets 4.5 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,314 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 658. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 2.0 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.