Wind Turbine Payback in Lipscomb County, TX
Wind turbine payback in Lipscomb 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 Lipscomb County, TX averages 6.78 m/s (15.2 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 25,457 kWh a year, worth $4,081 at TX's 16.03¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 25 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Lipscomb County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Lipscomb County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.6 m/s at the hub against 6.78 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,478 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,546, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 20¢/kWh, 1.2 times what TX pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.6 m/s instead of 6.78. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of TX
Lipscomb County is the 34th 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 Lipscomb County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.69 m/s and about 2,617 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.99 m/s and 1,664 kWh, so the best month makes 1.6 times the worst. November to March brings in 41% of the year's output in Lipscomb County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.53 m/s | 2,009 kWh | $322 |
| February | 6.66 m/s | 1,886 kWh | $302 |
| March | 7.18 m/s | 2,406 kWh | $386 |
| April | 7.69 m/s | 2,617 kWh | $420 |
| May | 6.99 m/s | 2,292 kWh | $367 |
| June | 7.11 m/s | 2,286 kWh | $366 |
| July | 6.17 m/s | 1,783 kWh | $286 |
| August | 5.99 m/s | 1,664 kWh | $267 |
| September | 6.67 m/s | 2,026 kWh | $325 |
| October | 6.85 m/s | 2,204 kWh | $353 |
| November | 6.91 m/s | 2,170 kWh | $348 |
| December | 6.60 m/s | 2,048 kWh | $328 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Lipscomb County averages 5.39 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.54 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.209, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 21,379 to 30,807 kWh a year, 44% 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 | 6.23 m/s | 21,379 kWh | 29 years |
| 30 m | 6.78 m/s | 25,431 kWh | 25 years |
| 40 m | 7.2 m/s | 28,436 kWh | 22 years |
| 50 m | 7.54 m/s | 30,807 kWh | 20 years |
Counties around Lipscomb County
None of the 6 closest counties is windier than Lipscomb County.
- Ellis County, OK: 6.76 m/s, 25,311 kWh, payback 29 years (29 mi)
- Ochiltree County, TX: 6.72 m/s, 25,020 kWh, payback 25 years (30 mi)
- Hemphill County, TX: 6.76 m/s, 25,311 kWh, payback 25 years (32 mi)
- Beaver County, OK: 6.72 m/s, 25,020 kWh, payback 29 years (34 mi)
- Roberts County, TX: 6.74 m/s, 25,166 kWh, payback 25 years (44 mi)
- Harper County, OK: 6.38 m/s, 22,521 kWh, payback 32 years (49 mi)
Sun versus wind in Lipscomb County
Lipscomb County gets 5.06 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,478 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,546. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.7 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.