Wind Turbine Payback in Navarro County, TX
Wind turbine payback in Navarro 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 Navarro County, TX averages 5.54 m/s (12.4 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 16,326 kWh a year, worth $2,617 at TX's 16.03¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 38 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Navarro County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Navarro County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.6 m/s at the hub against 5.54 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,375 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,633, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 31¢/kWh, 1.9 times what TX pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.6 m/s instead of 5.54. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of TX
Navarro County is the 1,186th 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 Navarro County
March is the strongest month here, at 6.33 m/s and about 1,882 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.46 m/s and 771 kWh, so the best month makes 2.4 times the worst. November to March brings in 51% of the year's output in Navarro County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.99 m/s | 1,665 kWh | $267 |
| February | 6.20 m/s | 1,624 kWh | $260 |
| March | 6.33 m/s | 1,882 kWh | $302 |
| April | 6.36 m/s | 1,837 kWh | $294 |
| May | 5.72 m/s | 1,498 kWh | $240 |
| June | 5.04 m/s | 1,052 kWh | $169 |
| July | 4.64 m/s | 867 kWh | $139 |
| August | 4.46 m/s | 771 kWh | $124 |
| September | 4.56 m/s | 799 kWh | $128 |
| October | 5.38 m/s | 1,286 kWh | $206 |
| November | 5.88 m/s | 1,546 kWh | $248 |
| December | 5.90 m/s | 1,609 kWh | $258 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Navarro County averages 4.25 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.26 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.241, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 12,667 to 21,632 kWh a year, 71% 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 | 5.02 m/s | 12,667 kWh | 49 years |
| 30 m | 5.53 m/s | 16,289 kWh | 38 years |
| 40 m | 5.93 m/s | 19,202 kWh | 33 years |
| 50 m | 6.26 m/s | 21,632 kWh | 29 years |
Counties around Navarro County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Ellis County, averages 5.68 m/s.
- Ellis County, TX: 5.68 m/s, 17,345 kWh, payback 36 years (28 mi)
- Freestone County, TX: 5.43 m/s, 15,534 kWh, payback 40 years (31 mi)
- Limestone County, TX: 5.52 m/s, 16,181 kWh, payback 39 years (35 mi)
- Henderson County, TX: 4.92 m/s, 11,999 kWh, payback 52 years (38 mi)
- Hill County, TX: 5.62 m/s, 16,907 kWh, payback 37 years (39 mi)
- Kaufman County, TX: 5.62 m/s, 16,907 kWh, payback 37 years (40 mi)
Sun versus wind in Navarro County
Navarro County gets 4.71 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,375 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,633. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.2 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.