Wind Turbine Payback in Union County, NM
Wind turbine payback in Union 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 Union County, NM averages 6.75 m/s (15.1 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 25,239 kWh a year, worth $3,872 at NM's 15.34¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 26 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Union County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Union County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.8 m/s at the hub against 6.75 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,559 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,524, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 20¢/kWh, 1.3 times what NM pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.8 m/s instead of 6.75. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of NM
Union County is the 44th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. It is the windiest county in NM.
Month by month in Union County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.65 m/s and about 2,592 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.45 m/s and 1,330 kWh, so the best month makes 1.9 times the worst. November to March brings in 47% of the year's output in Union County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 7.03 m/s | 2,316 kWh | $355 |
| February | 7.32 m/s | 2,246 kWh | $345 |
| March | 7.42 m/s | 2,545 kWh | $390 |
| April | 7.65 m/s | 2,592 kWh | $398 |
| May | 6.88 m/s | 2,223 kWh | $341 |
| June | 6.58 m/s | 1,969 kWh | $302 |
| July | 5.49 m/s | 1,358 kWh | $208 |
| August | 5.45 m/s | 1,330 kWh | $204 |
| September | 6.18 m/s | 1,730 kWh | $265 |
| October | 6.67 m/s | 2,096 kWh | $322 |
| November | 7.18 m/s | 2,330 kWh | $357 |
| December | 7.17 m/s | 2,402 kWh | $368 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Union County averages 5.31 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.54 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.218, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 21,000 to 30,807 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 | 6.17 m/s | 21,000 kWh | 31 years |
| 30 m | 6.75 m/s | 25,205 kWh | 26 years |
| 40 m | 7.18 m/s | 28,334 kWh | 23 years |
| 50 m | 7.54 m/s | 30,807 kWh | 21 years |
Counties around Union County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Dallam County, averages 6.82 m/s.
- Harding County, NM: 6.25 m/s, 21,558 kWh, payback 30 years (48 mi)
- Dallam County, TX: 6.82 m/s, 25,747 kWh, payback 24 years (51 mi)
- Cimarron County, OK: 6.82 m/s, 25,747 kWh, payback 28 years (56 mi)
- Colfax County, NM: 5.94 m/s, 19,260 kWh, payback 34 years (65 mi)
- Las Animas County, CO: 6.19 m/s, 21,113 kWh, payback 28 years (65 mi)
- Hartley County, TX: 6.55 m/s, 23,775 kWh, payback 26 years (66 mi)
Sun versus wind in Union County
Union County gets 5.34 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,559 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,524. 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.