Wind Turbine Payback in Quay County, NM
Wind turbine payback in Quay 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 Quay County, NM averages 6.32 m/s (14.1 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 22,077 kWh a year, worth $3,387 at NM's 15.34¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 30 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Quay County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Quay County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.8 m/s at the hub against 6.32 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,594 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,208, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 23¢/kWh, 1.5 times what NM pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.8 m/s instead of 6.32. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of NM
Quay County is the 452nd windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in NM is Union County at 6.75 m/s, payback 26 years.
Month by month in Quay County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.22 m/s and about 2,349 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.25 m/s and 1,210 kWh, so the best month makes 1.9 times the worst. November to March brings in 45% of the year's output in Quay County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.42 m/s | 1,940 kWh | $298 |
| February | 6.69 m/s | 1,903 kWh | $292 |
| March | 6.90 m/s | 2,233 kWh | $343 |
| April | 7.22 m/s | 2,349 kWh | $360 |
| May | 6.54 m/s | 2,013 kWh | $309 |
| June | 6.33 m/s | 1,824 kWh | $280 |
| July | 5.43 m/s | 1,322 kWh | $203 |
| August | 5.25 m/s | 1,210 kWh | $186 |
| September | 5.84 m/s | 1,520 kWh | $233 |
| October | 6.21 m/s | 1,806 kWh | $277 |
| November | 6.54 m/s | 1,948 kWh | $299 |
| December | 6.50 m/s | 1,985 kWh | $304 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Quay County averages 4.93 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.09 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.226, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 17,960 to 27,684 kWh a year, 54% 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 | 5.76 m/s | 17,960 kWh | 36 years |
| 30 m | 6.32 m/s | 22,054 kWh | 30 years |
| 40 m | 6.74 m/s | 25,175 kWh | 26 years |
| 50 m | 7.09 m/s | 27,684 kWh | 24 years |
Counties around Quay County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Deaf Smith County, averages 6.63 m/s.
- Curry County, NM: 6.41 m/s, 22,743 kWh, payback 29 years (39 mi)
- Deaf Smith County, TX: 6.63 m/s, 24,362 kWh, payback 26 years (54 mi)
- Harding County, NM: 6.25 m/s, 21,558 kWh, payback 30 years (55 mi)
- Oldham County, TX: 6.48 m/s, 23,260 kWh, payback 27 years (57 mi)
- Parmer County, TX: 6.39 m/s, 22,595 kWh, payback 28 years (59 mi)
- De Baca County, NM: 6.1 m/s, 20,446 kWh, payback 32 years (70 mi)
Sun versus wind in Quay County
Quay County gets 5.46 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,594 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,208. 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.