Wind Turbine Payback in Texas County, OK
Wind turbine payback in Texas 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 Texas County, OK averages 6.63 m/s (14.8 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 24,362 kWh a year, worth $3,364 at OK's 13.81¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 30 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Texas County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Texas County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.4 m/s at the hub against 6.63 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,507 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,436, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 21¢/kWh, 1.5 times what OK pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.4 m/s instead of 6.63. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of OK
Texas County is the 99th 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 Texas County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.43 m/s and about 2,471 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.90 m/s and 1,610 kWh, so the best month makes 1.5 times the worst. November to March brings in 41% of the year's output in Texas County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.38 m/s | 1,914 kWh | $264 |
| February | 6.59 m/s | 1,846 kWh | $255 |
| March | 6.95 m/s | 2,265 kWh | $313 |
| April | 7.43 m/s | 2,471 kWh | $341 |
| May | 6.80 m/s | 2,171 kWh | $300 |
| June | 6.92 m/s | 2,176 kWh | $301 |
| July | 6.13 m/s | 1,756 kWh | $243 |
| August | 5.90 m/s | 1,610 kWh | $222 |
| September | 6.60 m/s | 1,983 kWh | $274 |
| October | 6.66 m/s | 2,088 kWh | $288 |
| November | 6.80 m/s | 2,101 kWh | $290 |
| December | 6.46 m/s | 1,965 kWh | $271 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Texas County averages 5.24 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.4 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.214, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 20,315 to 29,851 kWh a year, 47% 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 | 6.08 m/s | 20,315 kWh | 36 years |
| 30 m | 6.63 m/s | 24,389 kWh | 30 years |
| 40 m | 7.05 m/s | 27,435 kWh | 26 years |
| 50 m | 7.4 m/s | 29,851 kWh | 24 years |
Counties around Texas County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Ochiltree County, averages 6.72 m/s.
- Stevens County, KS: 6.54 m/s, 23,702 kWh, payback 28 years (33 mi)
- Hansford County, TX: 6.63 m/s, 24,362 kWh, payback 26 years (33 mi)
- Morton County, KS: 6.6 m/s, 24,142 kWh, payback 27 years (35 mi)
- Sherman County, TX: 6.66 m/s, 24,582 kWh, payback 25 years (40 mi)
- Seward County, KS: 6.52 m/s, 23,554 kWh, payback 28 years (46 mi)
- Ochiltree County, TX: 6.72 m/s, 25,020 kWh, payback 25 years (49 mi)
Sun versus wind in Texas County
Texas County gets 5.16 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,507 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,436. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.6 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.