Wind Turbine Payback in Maverick County, TX
Wind turbine payback in Maverick 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 Maverick County, TX averages 5.24 m/s (11.7 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 14,186 kWh a year, worth $2,274 at TX's 16.03¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 44 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Maverick County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Maverick County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.6 m/s at the hub against 5.24 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,495 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,419, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 35¢/kWh, 2.2 times what TX pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.6 m/s instead of 5.24. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of TX
Maverick County is the 1,356th 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 Maverick County
May is the strongest month here, at 5.62 m/s and about 1,435 kWh. September is the weakest, 4.83 m/s and 936 kWh, so the best month makes 1.5 times the worst. November to March brings in 37% of the year's output in Maverick County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.84 m/s | 972 kWh | $156 |
| February | 5.07 m/s | 996 kWh | $160 |
| March | 5.51 m/s | 1,370 kWh | $220 |
| April | 5.69 m/s | 1,432 kWh | $230 |
| May | 5.62 m/s | 1,435 kWh | $230 |
| June | 5.69 m/s | 1,432 kWh | $230 |
| July | 5.51 m/s | 1,370 kWh | $220 |
| August | 5.22 m/s | 1,192 kWh | $191 |
| September | 4.83 m/s | 936 kWh | $150 |
| October | 5.10 m/s | 1,124 kWh | $180 |
| November | 4.97 m/s | 1,013 kWh | $162 |
| December | 4.78 m/s | 942 kWh | $151 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Maverick County averages 4.08 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.88 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 11,055 to 18,816 kWh a year, 70% 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 | 4.78 m/s | 11,055 kWh | 56 years |
| 30 m | 5.24 m/s | 14,160 kWh | 44 years |
| 40 m | 5.59 m/s | 16,686 kWh | 37 years |
| 50 m | 5.88 m/s | 18,816 kWh | 33 years |
Counties around Maverick County
6 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Kinney County, averages 5.78 m/s.
- Zavala County, TX: 5.32 m/s, 14,750 kWh, payback 42 years (35 mi)
- Dimmit County, TX: 5.36 m/s, 15,034 kWh, payback 42 years (40 mi)
- Kinney County, TX: 5.78 m/s, 18,079 kWh, payback 35 years (43 mi)
- Uvalde County, TX: 5.61 m/s, 16,834 kWh, payback 37 years (54 mi)
- Frio County, TX: 5.29 m/s, 14,538 kWh, payback 43 years (74 mi)
- La Salle County, TX: 5.41 m/s, 15,390 kWh, payback 41 years (79 mi)
Sun versus wind in Maverick County
Maverick County gets 5.12 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,495 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,419. 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.