Wind Turbine Payback in Nolan County, TX
Wind turbine payback in Nolan 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 Nolan County, TX averages 6.33 m/s (14.2 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 22,151 kWh a year, worth $3,551 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 Nolan County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Nolan County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.6 m/s at the hub against 6.33 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,536 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,215, 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 6.33. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of TX
Nolan County is the 441st 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 Nolan County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.30 m/s and about 2,395 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.44 m/s and 1,325 kWh, so the best month makes 1.8 times the worst. November to March brings in 44% of the year's output in Nolan County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.34 m/s | 1,889 kWh | $303 |
| February | 6.57 m/s | 1,838 kWh | $295 |
| March | 6.90 m/s | 2,239 kWh | $359 |
| April | 7.30 m/s | 2,395 kWh | $384 |
| May | 6.74 m/s | 2,140 kWh | $343 |
| June | 6.48 m/s | 1,915 kWh | $307 |
| July | 5.69 m/s | 1,479 kWh | $237 |
| August | 5.44 m/s | 1,325 kWh | $212 |
| September | 5.55 m/s | 1,346 kWh | $216 |
| October | 6.26 m/s | 1,838 kWh | $295 |
| November | 6.45 m/s | 1,893 kWh | $303 |
| December | 6.34 m/s | 1,889 kWh | $303 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Nolan County averages 4.97 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.09 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.221, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 18,155 to 27,684 kWh a year, 52% 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 | 5.79 m/s | 18,155 kWh | 34 years |
| 30 m | 6.33 m/s | 22,174 kWh | 28 years |
| 40 m | 6.75 m/s | 25,230 kWh | 25 years |
| 50 m | 7.09 m/s | 27,684 kWh | 23 years |
Counties around Nolan County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Taylor County, averages 6.38 m/s.
- Mitchell County, TX: 6.33 m/s, 22,151 kWh, payback 28 years (30 mi)
- Fisher County, TX: 6.33 m/s, 22,151 kWh, payback 28 years (30 mi)
- Taylor County, TX: 6.38 m/s, 22,521 kWh, payback 28 years (31 mi)
- Coke County, TX: 6.25 m/s, 21,558 kWh, payback 29 years (33 mi)
- Runnels County, TX: 6.15 m/s, 20,816 kWh, payback 30 years (41 mi)
- Scurry County, TX: 6.33 m/s, 22,151 kWh, payback 28 years (42 mi)
Sun versus wind in Nolan County
Nolan County gets 5.26 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,536 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,215. 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.