Wind Turbine Payback in Lavaca County, TX
Wind turbine payback in Lavaca 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 Lavaca County, TX averages 5.36 m/s (12 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 15,034 kWh a year, worth $2,410 at TX's 16.03¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 42 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Lavaca County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Lavaca County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.6 m/s at the hub against 5.36 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,375 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,503, 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 5.36. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of TX
Lavaca County is the 1,301st 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 Lavaca County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.11 m/s and about 1,688 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.32 m/s and 703 kWh, so the best month makes 2.4 times the worst. November to March brings in 50% of the year's output in Lavaca County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.79 m/s | 1,544 kWh | $248 |
| February | 5.95 m/s | 1,485 kWh | $238 |
| March | 6.02 m/s | 1,683 kWh | $270 |
| April | 6.11 m/s | 1,688 kWh | $271 |
| May | 5.73 m/s | 1,506 kWh | $241 |
| June | 4.90 m/s | 976 kWh | $156 |
| July | 4.54 m/s | 813 kWh | $130 |
| August | 4.32 m/s | 703 kWh | $113 |
| September | 4.50 m/s | 769 kWh | $123 |
| October | 5.17 m/s | 1,161 kWh | $186 |
| November | 5.58 m/s | 1,367 kWh | $219 |
| December | 5.74 m/s | 1,511 kWh | $242 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Lavaca County averages 4.12 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.06 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.240, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 11,627 to 20,149 kWh a year, 73% 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 | 4.86 m/s | 11,627 kWh | 54 years |
| 30 m | 5.36 m/s | 15,039 kWh | 42 years |
| 40 m | 5.74 m/s | 17,814 kWh | 35 years |
| 50 m | 6.06 m/s | 20,149 kWh | 31 years |
Counties around Lavaca County
5 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, DeWitt County, averages 5.46 m/s.
- Colorado County, TX: 5.24 m/s, 14,186 kWh, payback 44 years (29 mi)
- DeWitt County, TX: 5.46 m/s, 15,749 kWh, payback 40 years (34 mi)
- Fayette County, TX: 5.39 m/s, 15,247 kWh, payback 41 years (34 mi)
- Gonzales County, TX: 5.38 m/s, 15,176 kWh, payback 41 years (35 mi)
- Jackson County, TX: 5.42 m/s, 15,462 kWh, payback 40 years (36 mi)
- Victoria County, TX: 5.42 m/s, 15,462 kWh, payback 40 years (41 mi)
Sun versus wind in Lavaca County
Lavaca County gets 4.71 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,375 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,503. 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.