Wind Turbine Payback in Payne County, OK
Wind turbine payback in Payne 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 Payne County, OK averages 6.25 m/s (14 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 21,558 kWh a year, worth $2,977 at OK's 13.81¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 34 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Payne County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Payne County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.4 m/s at the hub against 6.25 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,334 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,156, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 23¢/kWh, 1.7 times what OK pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.4 m/s instead of 6.25. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of OK
Payne County is the 528th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in OK is Cimarron County at 6.82 m/s, payback 28 years.
Month by month in Payne County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.30 m/s and about 2,396 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.12 m/s and 1,133 kWh, so the best month makes 2.1 times the worst. November to March brings in 46% of the year's output in Payne County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.39 m/s | 1,919 kWh | $265 |
| February | 6.50 m/s | 1,794 kWh | $248 |
| March | 6.92 m/s | 2,251 kWh | $311 |
| April | 7.30 m/s | 2,396 kWh | $331 |
| May | 6.43 m/s | 1,942 kWh | $268 |
| June | 6.11 m/s | 1,684 kWh | $233 |
| July | 5.24 m/s | 1,206 kWh | $167 |
| August | 5.12 m/s | 1,133 kWh | $156 |
| September | 5.55 m/s | 1,345 kWh | $186 |
| October | 6.42 m/s | 1,936 kWh | $267 |
| November | 6.72 m/s | 2,056 kWh | $284 |
| December | 6.35 m/s | 1,891 kWh | $261 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Payne County averages 4.86 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.02 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.228, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 17,466 to 27,186 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 | 5.7 m/s | 17,466 kWh | 42 years |
| 30 m | 6.25 m/s | 21,545 kWh | 34 years |
| 40 m | 6.67 m/s | 24,668 kWh | 29 years |
| 50 m | 7.02 m/s | 27,186 kWh | 27 years |
Counties around Payne County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Oklahoma County, averages 6.36 m/s.
- Pawnee County, OK: 6.21 m/s, 21,262 kWh, payback 34 years (22 mi)
- Noble County, OK: 6.23 m/s, 21,410 kWh, payback 34 years (26 mi)
- Lincoln County, OK: 6.24 m/s, 21,484 kWh, payback 34 years (27 mi)
- Logan County, OK: 6.28 m/s, 21,781 kWh, payback 33 years (29 mi)
- Creek County, OK: 6.16 m/s, 20,891 kWh, payback 35 years (35 mi)
- Oklahoma County, OK: 6.36 m/s, 22,373 kWh, payback 32 years (44 mi)
Sun versus wind in Payne County
Payne County gets 4.57 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,334 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,156. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.6 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.