Wind Turbine Payback in Starr County, TX
Wind turbine payback in Starr 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 Starr County, TX averages 6.05 m/s (13.5 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 20,075 kWh a year, worth $3,218 at TX's 16.03¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 31 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Starr County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Starr County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.6 m/s at the hub against 6.05 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,480 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,008, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 25¢/kWh, 1.6 times what TX pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.6 m/s instead of 6.05. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of TX
Starr County is the 769th 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 Starr County
May is the strongest month here, at 6.87 m/s and about 2,216 kWh. September is the weakest, 5.05 m/s and 1,057 kWh, so the best month makes 2.1 times the worst. November to March brings in 38% of the year's output in Starr County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.67 m/s | 1,469 kWh | $235 |
| February | 5.97 m/s | 1,495 kWh | $240 |
| March | 6.52 m/s | 2,002 kWh | $321 |
| April | 6.83 m/s | 2,123 kWh | $340 |
| May | 6.87 m/s | 2,216 kWh | $355 |
| June | 6.50 m/s | 1,921 kWh | $308 |
| July | 6.60 m/s | 2,053 kWh | $329 |
| August | 5.92 m/s | 1,621 kWh | $260 |
| September | 5.05 m/s | 1,057 kWh | $169 |
| October | 5.54 m/s | 1,385 kWh | $222 |
| November | 5.63 m/s | 1,394 kWh | $223 |
| December | 5.54 m/s | 1,385 kWh | $222 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Starr County averages 4.88 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.69 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.196, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 16,691 to 24,801 kWh a year, 49% 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 | 5.59 m/s | 16,691 kWh | 37 years |
| 30 m | 6.05 m/s | 20,094 kWh | 31 years |
| 40 m | 6.4 m/s | 22,696 kWh | 28 years |
| 50 m | 6.69 m/s | 24,801 kWh | 25 years |
Counties around Starr County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Willacy County, averages 6.4 m/s.
- Hidalgo County, TX: 6.05 m/s, 20,075 kWh, payback 31 years (36 mi)
- Jim Hogg County, TX: 6.03 m/s, 19,926 kWh, payback 31 years (36 mi)
- Zapata County, TX: 5.93 m/s, 19,186 kWh, payback 33 years (42 mi)
- Brooks County, TX: 5.96 m/s, 19,408 kWh, payback 32 years (48 mi)
- Willacy County, TX: 6.4 m/s, 22,669 kWh, payback 28 years (71 mi)
- Kenedy County, TX: 6.4 m/s, 22,669 kWh, payback 28 years (75 mi)
Sun versus wind in Starr County
Starr County gets 5.07 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,480 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,008. 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.