Wind Turbine Payback in Tulsa County, OK
Wind turbine payback in Tulsa 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 Tulsa County, OK averages 6.16 m/s (13.8 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 20,891 kWh a year, worth $2,885 at OK's 13.81¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 35 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Tulsa County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Tulsa County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.4 m/s at the hub against 6.16 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,308 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,089, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 24¢/kWh, 1.7 times what OK pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.4 m/s instead of 6.16. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of OK
Tulsa County is the 630th 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 Tulsa County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.21 m/s and about 2,343 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.94 m/s and 1,029 kWh, so the best month makes 2.3 times the worst. November to March brings in 47% of the year's output in Tulsa County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.41 m/s | 1,934 kWh | $267 |
| February | 6.55 m/s | 1,822 kWh | $252 |
| March | 6.95 m/s | 2,265 kWh | $313 |
| April | 7.21 m/s | 2,343 kWh | $324 |
| May | 6.33 m/s | 1,878 kWh | $259 |
| June | 5.88 m/s | 1,547 kWh | $214 |
| July | 5.04 m/s | 1,090 kWh | $151 |
| August | 4.94 m/s | 1,029 kWh | $142 |
| September | 5.36 m/s | 1,238 kWh | $171 |
| October | 6.32 m/s | 1,873 kWh | $259 |
| November | 6.68 m/s | 2,033 kWh | $281 |
| December | 6.34 m/s | 1,889 kWh | $261 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Tulsa County averages 4.79 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.93 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.229, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 16,895 to 26,541 kWh a year, 57% 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 | 5.62 m/s | 16,895 kWh | 43 years |
| 30 m | 6.16 m/s | 20,927 kWh | 35 years |
| 40 m | 6.58 m/s | 24,031 kWh | 30 years |
| 50 m | 6.93 m/s | 26,541 kWh | 27 years |
Counties around Tulsa County
None of the 6 closest counties is windier than Tulsa County.
- Rogers County, OK: 5.9 m/s, 18,964 kWh, payback 38 years (26 mi)
- Wagoner County, OK: 5.47 m/s, 15,821 kWh, payback 46 years (26 mi)
- Creek County, OK: 6.16 m/s, 20,891 kWh, payback 35 years (29 mi)
- Okmulgee County, OK: 6.11 m/s, 20,520 kWh, payback 35 years (33 mi)
- Washington County, OK: 5.9 m/s, 18,964 kWh, payback 38 years (40 mi)
- Mayes County, OK: 5.2 m/s, 13,907 kWh, payback 52 years (41 mi)
Sun versus wind in Tulsa County
Tulsa County gets 4.48 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,308 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,089. 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.