Wind Turbine Payback in Tyler County, TX
Wind turbine payback in Tyler 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 Tyler County, TX averages 3.18 m/s (7.1 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 3,165 kWh a year, worth $507 at TX's 16.03¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of over 100 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Tyler County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Tyler County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.6 m/s at the hub against 3.18 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,337 kWh a year here against the turbine's 317, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 158¢/kWh, 9.9 times what TX pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.6 m/s instead of 3.18. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of TX
Tyler County is the 2,904th 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 Tyler County
April is the strongest month here, at 3.66 m/s and about 411 kWh. July is the weakest, 2.58 m/s and 130 kWh, so the best month makes 3.2 times the worst. November to March brings in 51% of the year's output in Tyler County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.37 m/s | 325 kWh | $52 |
| February | 3.46 m/s | 319 kWh | $51 |
| March | 3.55 m/s | 385 kWh | $62 |
| April | 3.66 m/s | 411 kWh | $66 |
| May | 3.34 m/s | 315 kWh | $50 |
| June | 2.85 m/s | 180 kWh | $29 |
| July | 2.58 m/s | 130 kWh | $21 |
| August | 2.61 m/s | 134 kWh | $21 |
| September | 2.84 m/s | 178 kWh | $29 |
| October | 3.15 m/s | 262 kWh | $42 |
| November | 3.35 m/s | 310 kWh | $50 |
| December | 3.38 m/s | 328 kWh | $53 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Tyler County averages 1.94 m/s; at 50 m it is 4 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.450, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 1,675 to 6,577 kWh a year, 293% 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 | 2.65 m/s | 1,675 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.18 m/s | 3,160 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 3.62 m/s | 4,811 kWh | over 100 years |
| 50 m | 4 m/s | 6,577 kWh | 95 years |
Counties around Tyler County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Polk County, averages 3.3 m/s.
- Jasper County, TX: 3.18 m/s, 3,165 kWh, payback over 100 years (21 mi)
- Polk County, TX: 3.3 m/s, 3,577 kWh, payback over 100 years (27 mi)
- Hardin County, TX: 3.14 m/s, 3,034 kWh, payback over 100 years (30 mi)
- Angelina County, TX: 3.2 m/s, 3,232 kWh, payback over 100 years (36 mi)
- Newton County, TX: 3.18 m/s, 3,165 kWh, payback over 100 years (38 mi)
- San Augustine County, TX: 3.2 m/s, 3,232 kWh, payback over 100 years (44 mi)
Sun versus wind in Tyler County
Tyler County gets 4.58 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,337 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 317. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 4.2 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.