Wind Turbine Payback in Red River County, TX
Wind turbine payback in Red River 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 Red River County, TX averages 5.04 m/s (11.3 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 12,805 kWh a year, worth $2,053 at TX's 16.03¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 49 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Red River County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Red River County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.6 m/s at the hub against 5.04 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,340 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,281, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 39¢/kWh, 2.4 times what TX pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.6 m/s instead of 5.04. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of TX
Red River County is the 1,436th 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 Red River County
March is the strongest month here, at 5.83 m/s and about 1,566 kWh. August is the weakest, 3.98 m/s and 550 kWh, so the best month makes 2.8 times the worst. November to March brings in 51% of the year's output in Red River County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.43 m/s | 1,317 kWh | $211 |
| February | 5.61 m/s | 1,292 kWh | $207 |
| March | 5.83 m/s | 1,566 kWh | $251 |
| April | 5.89 m/s | 1,552 kWh | $249 |
| May | 5.22 m/s | 1,192 kWh | $191 |
| June | 4.50 m/s | 769 kWh | $123 |
| July | 4.03 m/s | 572 kWh | $92 |
| August | 3.98 m/s | 550 kWh | $88 |
| September | 4.34 m/s | 689 kWh | $110 |
| October | 4.96 m/s | 1,039 kWh | $167 |
| November | 5.45 m/s | 1,290 kWh | $207 |
| December | 5.34 m/s | 1,265 kWh | $203 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Red River County averages 3.76 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.78 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.267, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 9,493 to 18,079 kWh a year, 90% 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 | 4.53 m/s | 9,493 kWh | 66 years |
| 30 m | 5.04 m/s | 12,826 kWh | 49 years |
| 40 m | 5.45 m/s | 15,646 kWh | 40 years |
| 50 m | 5.78 m/s | 18,079 kWh | 35 years |
Counties around Red River County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Lamar County, averages 5.37 m/s.
- Titus County, TX: 4.89 m/s, 11,800 kWh, payback 53 years (28 mi)
- Lamar County, TX: 5.37 m/s, 15,105 kWh, payback 41 years (30 mi)
- Franklin County, TX: 4.89 m/s, 11,800 kWh, payback 53 years (32 mi)
- McCurtain County, OK: 3.76 m/s, 5,432 kWh, payback over 100 years (38 mi)
- Bowie County, TX: 4.42 m/s, 8,865 kWh, payback 70 years (38 mi)
- Morris County, TX: 4.89 m/s, 11,800 kWh, payback 53 years (39 mi)
Sun versus wind in Red River County
Red River 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 1,281. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.0 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.