Wind Turbine Payback in Mason County, TX
Wind turbine payback in Mason 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 Mason County, TX averages 6.08 m/s (13.6 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 20,297 kWh a year, worth $3,254 at TX's 16.03¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 31 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Mason County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Mason County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.6 m/s at the hub against 6.08 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,472 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,030, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 25¢/kWh, 1.5 times what TX pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.6 m/s instead of 6.08. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of TX
Mason County is the 714th 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 Mason County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.89 m/s and about 2,158 kWh. September is the weakest, 5.08 m/s and 1,073 kWh, so the best month makes 2.0 times the worst. November to March brings in 46% of the year's output in Mason County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.25 m/s | 1,829 kWh | $293 |
| February | 6.48 m/s | 1,784 kWh | $286 |
| March | 6.69 m/s | 2,109 kWh | $338 |
| April | 6.89 m/s | 2,158 kWh | $346 |
| May | 6.43 m/s | 1,947 kWh | $312 |
| June | 5.98 m/s | 1,607 kWh | $258 |
| July | 5.49 m/s | 1,354 kWh | $217 |
| August | 5.17 m/s | 1,161 kWh | $186 |
| September | 5.08 m/s | 1,073 kWh | $172 |
| October | 5.93 m/s | 1,632 kWh | $262 |
| November | 6.26 m/s | 1,781 kWh | $285 |
| December | 6.27 m/s | 1,846 kWh | $296 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Mason County averages 4.77 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.8 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.220, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 16,461 to 25,602 kWh a year, 56% 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 | 5.56 m/s | 16,461 kWh | 38 years |
| 30 m | 6.08 m/s | 20,276 kWh | 31 years |
| 40 m | 6.47 m/s | 23,217 kWh | 27 years |
| 50 m | 6.8 m/s | 25,602 kWh | 24 years |
Counties around Mason County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Menard County, averages 6.21 m/s.
- Gillespie County, TX: 5.89 m/s, 18,890 kWh, payback 33 years (32 mi)
- Llano County, TX: 5.89 m/s, 18,890 kWh, payback 33 years (33 mi)
- Kimble County, TX: 6.2 m/s, 21,187 kWh, payback 29 years (34 mi)
- McCulloch County, TX: 5.98 m/s, 19,556 kWh, payback 32 years (35 mi)
- Menard County, TX: 6.21 m/s, 21,262 kWh, payback 29 years (39 mi)
- San Saba County, TX: 5.82 m/s, 18,374 kWh, payback 34 years (40 mi)
Sun versus wind in Mason County
Mason County gets 5.04 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,472 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,030. 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.