Wind Turbine Payback in Rusk County, TX
Wind turbine payback in Rusk 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 Rusk County, TX averages 4.17 m/s (9.3 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 7,461 kWh a year, worth $1,196 at TX's 16.03¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 84 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Rusk County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Rusk County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.6 m/s at the hub against 4.17 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,340 kWh a year here against the turbine's 746, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 67¢/kWh, 4.2 times what TX pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.6 m/s instead of 4.17. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of TX
Rusk County is the 1,965th 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 Rusk County
April is the strongest month here, at 4.80 m/s and about 921 kWh. August is the weakest, 3.34 m/s and 317 kWh, so the best month makes 2.9 times the worst. November to March brings in 53% of the year's output in Rusk County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.55 m/s | 817 kWh | $131 |
| February | 4.66 m/s | 794 kWh | $127 |
| March | 4.74 m/s | 919 kWh | $147 |
| April | 4.80 m/s | 921 kWh | $148 |
| May | 4.26 m/s | 675 kWh | $108 |
| June | 3.67 m/s | 414 kWh | $66 |
| July | 3.34 m/s | 317 kWh | $51 |
| August | 3.34 m/s | 317 kWh | $51 |
| September | 3.63 m/s | 399 kWh | $64 |
| October | 4.12 m/s | 610 kWh | $98 |
| November | 4.46 m/s | 749 kWh | $120 |
| December | 4.47 m/s | 778 kWh | $125 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Rusk County averages 2.88 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.95 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.337, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 4,883 to 12,199 kWh a year, 150% 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 | 3.63 m/s | 4,883 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 4.17 m/s | 7,446 kWh | 84 years |
| 40 m | 4.59 m/s | 9,894 kWh | 63 years |
| 50 m | 4.95 m/s | 12,199 kWh | 51 years |
Counties around Rusk County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Gregg County, averages 4.64 m/s.
- Gregg County, TX: 4.64 m/s, 10,195 kWh, payback 61 years (26 mi)
- Panola County, TX: 3.47 m/s, 4,211 kWh, payback over 100 years (27 mi)
- Cherokee County, TX: 4.17 m/s, 7,461 kWh, payback 84 years (30 mi)
- Nacogdoches County, TX: 3.2 m/s, 3,232 kWh, payback over 100 years (35 mi)
- Smith County, TX: 4.64 m/s, 10,195 kWh, payback 61 years (35 mi)
- Harrison County, TX: 3.49 m/s, 4,289 kWh, payback over 100 years (38 mi)
Sun versus wind in Rusk County
Rusk 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 746. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.8 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.