Wind Turbine Payback in Swisher County, TX
Wind turbine payback in Swisher 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 Swisher County, TX averages 6.48 m/s (14.5 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 23,260 kWh a year, worth $3,729 at TX's 16.03¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 27 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Swisher County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Swisher County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.6 m/s at the hub against 6.48 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,545 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,326, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 21¢/kWh, 1.3 times what TX pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.6 m/s instead of 6.48. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of TX
Swisher County is the 228th 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 Swisher County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.43 m/s and about 2,469 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.46 m/s and 1,340 kWh, so the best month makes 1.8 times the worst. November to March brings in 45% of the year's output in Swisher County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.56 m/s | 2,027 kWh | $325 |
| February | 6.78 m/s | 1,951 kWh | $313 |
| March | 6.98 m/s | 2,286 kWh | $366 |
| April | 7.43 m/s | 2,469 kWh | $396 |
| May | 6.70 m/s | 2,116 kWh | $339 |
| June | 6.53 m/s | 1,940 kWh | $311 |
| July | 5.67 m/s | 1,466 kWh | $235 |
| August | 5.46 m/s | 1,340 kWh | $215 |
| September | 5.84 m/s | 1,522 kWh | $244 |
| October | 6.49 m/s | 1,982 kWh | $318 |
| November | 6.77 m/s | 2,085 kWh | $334 |
| December | 6.67 m/s | 2,093 kWh | $336 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Swisher County averages 5.08 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.26 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.222, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 19,139 to 28,881 kWh a year, 51% 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 | 5.92 m/s | 19,139 kWh | 33 years |
| 30 m | 6.48 m/s | 23,272 kWh | 27 years |
| 40 m | 6.91 m/s | 26,391 kWh | 24 years |
| 50 m | 7.26 m/s | 28,881 kWh | 22 years |
Counties around Swisher County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Randall County, averages 6.6 m/s.
- Castro County, TX: 6.39 m/s, 22,595 kWh, payback 28 years (29 mi)
- Briscoe County, TX: 6.35 m/s, 22,299 kWh, payback 28 years (31 mi)
- Randall County, TX: 6.6 m/s, 24,142 kWh, payback 26 years (31 mi)
- Hale County, TX: 6.37 m/s, 22,447 kWh, payback 28 years (32 mi)
- Armstrong County, TX: 6.44 m/s, 22,964 kWh, payback 27 years (37 mi)
- Floyd County, TX: 6.45 m/s, 23,038 kWh, payback 27 years (40 mi)
Sun versus wind in Swisher County
Swisher County gets 5.29 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,545 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,326. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.5 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.