Wind Turbine Payback in Potter County, TX
Wind turbine payback in Potter 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 Potter County, TX averages 6.55 m/s (14.7 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 23,775 kWh a year, worth $3,811 at TX's 16.03¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 26 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Potter County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Potter County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.6 m/s at the hub against 6.55 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,524 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,378, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 21¢/kWh, 1.3 times what TX pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.6 m/s instead of 6.55. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of TX
Potter County is the 151st 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 Potter County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.44 m/s and about 2,474 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.69 m/s and 1,479 kWh, so the best month makes 1.7 times the worst. November to March brings in 43% of the year's output in Potter County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.45 m/s | 1,957 kWh | $314 |
| February | 6.72 m/s | 1,919 kWh | $308 |
| March | 6.93 m/s | 2,257 kWh | $362 |
| April | 7.44 m/s | 2,474 kWh | $397 |
| May | 6.74 m/s | 2,136 kWh | $342 |
| June | 6.73 m/s | 2,062 kWh | $331 |
| July | 5.90 m/s | 1,608 kWh | $258 |
| August | 5.69 m/s | 1,479 kWh | $237 |
| September | 6.23 m/s | 1,758 kWh | $282 |
| October | 6.55 m/s | 2,019 kWh | $324 |
| November | 6.77 m/s | 2,089 kWh | $335 |
| December | 6.55 m/s | 2,019 kWh | $324 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Potter County averages 5.17 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.31 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.215, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 19,725 to 29,229 kWh a year, 48% 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 | 6 m/s | 19,725 kWh | 32 years |
| 30 m | 6.55 m/s | 23,773 kWh | 26 years |
| 40 m | 6.97 m/s | 26,811 kWh | 23 years |
| 50 m | 7.31 m/s | 29,229 kWh | 21 years |
Counties around Potter County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Carson County, averages 6.7 m/s.
- Randall County, TX: 6.6 m/s, 24,142 kWh, payback 26 years (30 mi)
- Moore County, TX: 6.58 m/s, 23,996 kWh, payback 26 years (30 mi)
- Carson County, TX: 6.7 m/s, 24,874 kWh, payback 25 years (30 mi)
- Oldham County, TX: 6.48 m/s, 23,260 kWh, payback 27 years (40 mi)
- Hutchinson County, TX: 6.68 m/s, 24,728 kWh, payback 25 years (43 mi)
- Armstrong County, TX: 6.44 m/s, 22,964 kWh, payback 27 years (43 mi)
Sun versus wind in Potter County
Potter County gets 5.22 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,524 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,378. 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.