Wind Turbine Payback in Reeves County, TX
Wind turbine payback in Reeves 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 Reeves County, TX averages 5.48 m/s (12.3 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 15,893 kWh a year, worth $2,548 at TX's 16.03¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 39 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Reeves County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Reeves County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.6 m/s at the hub against 5.48 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,641 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,589, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 31¢/kWh, 2.0 times what TX pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.6 m/s instead of 5.48. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of TX
Reeves County is the 1,234th 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 Reeves County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.37 m/s and about 1,844 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.63 m/s and 860 kWh, so the best month makes 2.1 times the worst. November to March brings in 46% of the year's output in Reeves County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.62 m/s | 1,435 kWh | $230 |
| February | 5.95 m/s | 1,482 kWh | $238 |
| March | 6.05 m/s | 1,703 kWh | $273 |
| April | 6.37 m/s | 1,844 kWh | $296 |
| May | 5.76 m/s | 1,524 kWh | $244 |
| June | 5.43 m/s | 1,278 kWh | $205 |
| July | 5.06 m/s | 1,097 kWh | $176 |
| August | 4.63 m/s | 860 kWh | $138 |
| September | 4.78 m/s | 911 kWh | $146 |
| October | 5.16 m/s | 1,160 kWh | $186 |
| November | 5.38 m/s | 1,246 kWh | $200 |
| December | 5.59 m/s | 1,419 kWh | $227 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Reeves County averages 4.28 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.14 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.224, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 12,539 to 20,742 kWh a year, 65% 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 m/s | 12,539 kWh | 50 years |
| 30 m | 5.48 m/s | 15,865 kWh | 39 years |
| 40 m | 5.84 m/s | 18,526 kWh | 34 years |
| 50 m | 6.14 m/s | 20,742 kWh | 30 years |
Counties around Reeves County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Pecos County, averages 6.32 m/s.
- Loving County, TX: 5.4 m/s, 15,319 kWh, payback 41 years (38 mi)
- Ward County, TX: 5.53 m/s, 16,254 kWh, payback 38 years (39 mi)
- Culberson County, TX: 5.63 m/s, 16,980 kWh, payback 37 years (49 mi)
- Winkler County, TX: 5.77 m/s, 18,006 kWh, payback 35 years (53 mi)
- Jeff Davis County, TX: 5.26 m/s, 14,327 kWh, payback 44 years (55 mi)
- Pecos County, TX: 6.32 m/s, 22,077 kWh, payback 28 years (70 mi)
Sun versus wind in Reeves County
Reeves County gets 5.62 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,641 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,589. 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.