Wind Turbine Payback in Sequoyah County, OK
Wind turbine payback in Sequoyah 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 Sequoyah County, OK averages 4.62 m/s (10.3 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 10,070 kWh a year, worth $1,391 at OK's 13.81¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 72 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Sequoyah County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Sequoyah County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.4 m/s at the hub against 4.62 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,296 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,007, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 50¢/kWh, 3.6 times what OK pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.4 m/s instead of 4.62. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of OK
Sequoyah County is the 1,678th 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 Sequoyah County
March is the strongest month here, at 5.39 m/s and about 1,293 kWh. July is the weakest, 3.58 m/s and 395 kWh, so the best month makes 3.3 times the worst. November to March brings in 52% of the year's output in Sequoyah County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.01 m/s | 1,068 kWh | $147 |
| February | 5.16 m/s | 1,046 kWh | $144 |
| March | 5.39 m/s | 1,293 kWh | $179 |
| April | 5.45 m/s | 1,286 kWh | $178 |
| May | 4.73 m/s | 913 kWh | $126 |
| June | 4.16 m/s | 608 kWh | $84 |
| July | 3.58 m/s | 395 kWh | $55 |
| August | 3.60 m/s | 401 kWh | $55 |
| September | 3.96 m/s | 524 kWh | $72 |
| October | 4.61 m/s | 849 kWh | $117 |
| November | 5.01 m/s | 1,038 kWh | $143 |
| December | 4.86 m/s | 985 kWh | $136 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Sequoyah County averages 3.38 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.35 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.285, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 7,197 to 14,963 kWh a year, 108% 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 | 4.12 m/s | 7,197 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 4.63 m/s | 10,102 kWh | 72 years |
| 40 m | 5.02 m/s | 12,672 kWh | 57 years |
| 50 m | 5.35 m/s | 14,963 kWh | 48 years |
Counties around Sequoyah County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Muskogee County, averages 5.63 m/s.
- Haskell County, OK: 4 m/s, 6,577 kWh, payback over 100 years (28 mi)
- Adair County, OK: 3.94 m/s, 6,280 kWh, payback over 100 years (28 mi)
- Crawford County, AR: 4.28 m/s, 8,064 kWh, payback 90 years (29 mi)
- Cherokee County, OK: 4.28 m/s, 8,064 kWh, payback 90 years (31 mi)
- Sebastian County, AR: 3.58 m/s, 4,653 kWh, payback over 100 years (34 mi)
- Muskogee County, OK: 5.63 m/s, 16,980 kWh, payback 43 years (36 mi)
Sun versus wind in Sequoyah County
Sequoyah County gets 4.44 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,296 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,007. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.3 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.