Wind Turbine Payback in Loving County, TX
Wind turbine payback in Loving 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 Loving County, TX averages 5.4 m/s (12.1 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 15,319 kWh a year, worth $2,456 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 Loving County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Loving County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.6 m/s at the hub against 5.4 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,641 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,532, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 33¢/kWh, 2.0 times what TX pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.6 m/s instead of 5.4. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of TX
Loving County is the 1,283rd 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 Loving County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.32 m/s and about 1,815 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.62 m/s and 853 kWh, so the best month makes 2.1 times the worst. November to March brings in 44% of the year's output in Loving County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.42 m/s | 1,313 kWh | $210 |
| February | 5.76 m/s | 1,375 kWh | $220 |
| March | 5.95 m/s | 1,640 kWh | $263 |
| April | 6.32 m/s | 1,815 kWh | $291 |
| May | 5.77 m/s | 1,528 kWh | $245 |
| June | 5.53 m/s | 1,334 kWh | $214 |
| July | 5.09 m/s | 1,116 kWh | $179 |
| August | 4.62 m/s | 853 kWh | $137 |
| September | 4.82 m/s | 933 kWh | $150 |
| October | 5.11 m/s | 1,126 kWh | $180 |
| November | 5.20 m/s | 1,146 kWh | $184 |
| December | 5.32 m/s | 1,253 kWh | $201 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Loving County averages 4.23 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.05 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.222, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 12,108 to 20,075 kWh a year, 66% 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 | 4.94 m/s | 12,108 kWh | 52 years |
| 30 m | 5.4 m/s | 15,329 kWh | 41 years |
| 40 m | 5.76 m/s | 17,914 kWh | 35 years |
| 50 m | 6.05 m/s | 20,075 kWh | 31 years |
Counties around Loving County
6 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Ector County, averages 6.12 m/s.
- Winkler County, TX: 5.77 m/s, 18,006 kWh, payback 35 years (30 mi)
- Ward County, TX: 5.53 m/s, 16,254 kWh, payback 38 years (35 mi)
- Reeves County, TX: 5.48 m/s, 15,893 kWh, payback 39 years (38 mi)
- Ector County, TX: 6.12 m/s, 20,594 kWh, payback 30 years (60 mi)
- Eddy County, NM: 5.59 m/s, 16,689 kWh, payback 39 years (61 mi)
- Andrews County, TX: 6.11 m/s, 20,520 kWh, payback 30 years (63 mi)
Sun versus wind in Loving County
Loving County gets 5.62 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,641 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,532. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.1 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.