Wind Turbine Payback in Uvalde County, TX
Wind turbine payback in Uvalde 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 Uvalde County, TX averages 5.61 m/s (12.5 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 16,834 kWh a year, worth $2,699 at TX's 16.03¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 37 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Uvalde County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Uvalde County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.6 m/s at the hub against 5.61 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,416 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,683, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 30¢/kWh, 1.9 times what TX pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.6 m/s instead of 5.61. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of TX
Uvalde County is the 1,161st 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 Uvalde County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.29 m/s and about 1,793 kWh. September is the weakest, 5.02 m/s and 1,040 kWh, so the best month makes 1.7 times the worst. November to March brings in 41% of the year's output in Uvalde County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.37 m/s | 1,280 kWh | $205 |
| February | 5.67 m/s | 1,325 kWh | $212 |
| March | 6.01 m/s | 1,679 kWh | $269 |
| April | 6.29 m/s | 1,793 kWh | $287 |
| May | 6.08 m/s | 1,724 kWh | $276 |
| June | 5.86 m/s | 1,532 kWh | $246 |
| July | 5.52 m/s | 1,373 kWh | $220 |
| August | 5.16 m/s | 1,158 kWh | $186 |
| September | 5.02 m/s | 1,040 kWh | $167 |
| October | 5.48 m/s | 1,351 kWh | $217 |
| November | 5.50 m/s | 1,318 kWh | $211 |
| December | 5.34 m/s | 1,264 kWh | $203 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Uvalde County averages 4.39 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.28 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 13,381 to 21,781 kWh a year, 63% 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 | 5.12 m/s | 13,381 kWh | 47 years |
| 30 m | 5.61 m/s | 16,811 kWh | 37 years |
| 40 m | 5.98 m/s | 19,530 kWh | 32 years |
| 50 m | 6.28 m/s | 21,781 kWh | 29 years |
Counties around Uvalde County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Real County, averages 6.07 m/s.
- Real County, TX: 6.07 m/s, 20,223 kWh, payback 31 years (33 mi)
- Zavala County, TX: 5.32 m/s, 14,750 kWh, payback 42 years (34 mi)
- Kinney County, TX: 5.78 m/s, 18,079 kWh, payback 35 years (39 mi)
- Medina County, TX: 5.43 m/s, 15,534 kWh, payback 40 years (40 mi)
- Bandera County, TX: 5.9 m/s, 18,964 kWh, payback 33 years (42 mi)
- Frio County, TX: 5.29 m/s, 14,538 kWh, payback 43 years (52 mi)
Sun versus wind in Uvalde County
Uvalde County gets 4.85 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,416 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,683. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.2 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.