Wind Turbine Payback in Lubbock County, TX
Wind turbine payback in Lubbock 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 Lubbock County, TX averages 6.3 m/s (14.1 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 21,929 kWh a year, worth $3,515 at TX's 16.03¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 28 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Lubbock County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Lubbock County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.6 m/s at the hub against 6.3 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,562 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,193, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 23¢/kWh, 1.4 times what TX pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.6 m/s instead of 6.3. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of TX
Lubbock County is the 474th 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 Lubbock County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.29 m/s and about 2,393 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.33 m/s and 1,261 kWh, so the best month makes 1.9 times the worst. November to March brings in 45% of the year's output in Lubbock County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.39 m/s | 1,921 kWh | $308 |
| February | 6.60 m/s | 1,851 kWh | $297 |
| March | 6.81 m/s | 2,182 kWh | $350 |
| April | 7.29 m/s | 2,393 kWh | $384 |
| May | 6.61 m/s | 2,055 kWh | $329 |
| June | 6.37 m/s | 1,843 kWh | $295 |
| July | 5.53 m/s | 1,381 kWh | $221 |
| August | 5.33 m/s | 1,261 kWh | $202 |
| September | 5.50 m/s | 1,320 kWh | $212 |
| October | 6.20 m/s | 1,798 kWh | $288 |
| November | 6.45 m/s | 1,892 kWh | $303 |
| December | 6.47 m/s | 1,966 kWh | $315 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Lubbock County averages 4.91 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.07 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.227, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 17,802 to 27,542 kWh a year, 55% 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 | 5.74 m/s | 17,802 kWh | 35 years |
| 30 m | 6.3 m/s | 21,899 kWh | 29 years |
| 40 m | 6.72 m/s | 25,026 kWh | 25 years |
| 50 m | 7.07 m/s | 27,542 kWh | 23 years |
Counties around Lubbock County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Hale County, averages 6.37 m/s.
- Lynn County, TX: 6.23 m/s, 21,410 kWh, payback 29 years (30 mi)
- Crosby County, TX: 6.28 m/s, 21,781 kWh, payback 29 years (30 mi)
- Hockley County, TX: 6.2 m/s, 21,187 kWh, payback 29 years (30 mi)
- Hale County, TX: 6.37 m/s, 22,447 kWh, payback 28 years (32 mi)
- Garza County, TX: 6.18 m/s, 21,039 kWh, payback 30 years (42 mi)
- Terry County, TX: 6.14 m/s, 20,742 kWh, payback 30 years (43 mi)
Sun versus wind in Lubbock County
Lubbock County gets 5.35 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,562 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,193. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.4 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.