Wind Turbine Payback in Rogers County, OK
Wind turbine payback in Rogers 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 Rogers County, OK averages 5.9 m/s (13.2 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 18,964 kWh a year, worth $2,619 at OK's 13.81¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 38 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Rogers County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Rogers County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.4 m/s at the hub against 5.9 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,308 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,896, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 26¢/kWh, 1.9 times what OK pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.4 m/s instead of 5.9. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of OK
Rogers County is the 988th 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 Rogers County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.94 m/s and about 2,189 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.68 m/s and 889 kWh, so the best month makes 2.5 times the worst. November to March brings in 48% of the year's output in Rogers County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.16 m/s | 1,776 kWh | $245 |
| February | 6.35 m/s | 1,710 kWh | $236 |
| March | 6.71 m/s | 2,120 kWh | $293 |
| April | 6.94 m/s | 2,189 kWh | $302 |
| May | 6.02 m/s | 1,687 kWh | $233 |
| June | 5.54 m/s | 1,344 kWh | $186 |
| July | 4.74 m/s | 918 kWh | $127 |
| August | 4.68 m/s | 889 kWh | $123 |
| September | 5.13 m/s | 1,102 kWh | $152 |
| October | 6.04 m/s | 1,698 kWh | $234 |
| November | 6.42 m/s | 1,875 kWh | $259 |
| December | 6.08 m/s | 1,726 kWh | $238 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Rogers County averages 4.54 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.66 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.238, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 14,999 to 24,582 kWh a year, 64% 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 | 5.36 m/s | 14,999 kWh | 48 years |
| 30 m | 5.9 m/s | 18,946 kWh | 38 years |
| 40 m | 6.32 m/s | 22,044 kWh | 33 years |
| 50 m | 6.66 m/s | 24,582 kWh | 30 years |
Counties around Rogers County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Tulsa County, averages 6.16 m/s.
- Mayes County, OK: 5.2 m/s, 13,907 kWh, payback 52 years (21 mi)
- Tulsa County, OK: 6.16 m/s, 20,891 kWh, payback 35 years (26 mi)
- Washington County, OK: 5.9 m/s, 18,964 kWh, payback 38 years (28 mi)
- Nowata County, OK: 6.03 m/s, 19,926 kWh, payback 36 years (28 mi)
- Wagoner County, OK: 5.47 m/s, 15,821 kWh, payback 46 years (29 mi)
- Craig County, OK: 5.88 m/s, 18,816 kWh, payback 39 years (35 mi)
Sun versus wind in Rogers County
Rogers County gets 4.48 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,308 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,896. 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.