Wind Turbine Payback in Panola County, TX
Wind turbine payback in Panola 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 Panola County, TX averages 3.47 m/s (7.8 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 4,211 kWh a year, worth $675 at TX's 16.03¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of over 100 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Panola County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Panola County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.6 m/s at the hub against 3.47 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,340 kWh a year here against the turbine's 421, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 119¢/kWh, 7.4 times what TX pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.6 m/s instead of 3.47. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of TX
Panola County is the 2,548th 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 Panola County
April is the strongest month here, at 3.99 m/s and about 538 kWh. July is the weakest, 2.81 m/s and 177 kWh, so the best month makes 3.0 times the worst. November to March brings in 52% of the year's output in Panola County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.71 m/s | 443 kWh | $71 |
| February | 3.81 m/s | 434 kWh | $70 |
| March | 3.92 m/s | 526 kWh | $84 |
| April | 3.99 m/s | 538 kWh | $86 |
| May | 3.57 m/s | 391 kWh | $63 |
| June | 3.09 m/s | 237 kWh | $38 |
| July | 2.81 m/s | 177 kWh | $28 |
| August | 2.84 m/s | 182 kWh | $29 |
| September | 3.10 m/s | 239 kWh | $38 |
| October | 3.44 m/s | 348 kWh | $56 |
| November | 3.69 m/s | 420 kWh | $67 |
| December | 3.67 m/s | 428 kWh | $69 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Panola County averages 2.17 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.32 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.428, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 2,366 to 8,289 kWh a year, 250% 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 | 2.92 m/s | 2,366 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.47 m/s | 4,217 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 3.93 m/s | 6,214 kWh | over 100 years |
| 50 m | 4.32 m/s | 8,289 kWh | 75 years |
Counties around Panola County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Gregg County, averages 4.64 m/s.
- Rusk County, TX: 4.17 m/s, 7,461 kWh, payback 84 years (27 mi)
- Harrison County, TX: 3.49 m/s, 4,289 kWh, payback over 100 years (27 mi)
- Shelby County, TX: 3.47 m/s, 4,211 kWh, payback over 100 years (28 mi)
- De Soto Parish, LA: 3.3 m/s, 3,577 kWh, payback over 100 years (34 mi)
- Gregg County, TX: 4.64 m/s, 10,195 kWh, payback 61 years (37 mi)
- Caddo Parish, LA: 3.49 m/s, 4,289 kWh, payback over 100 years (38 mi)
Sun versus wind in Panola County
Panola County gets 4.59 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,340 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 421. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 3.2 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.