Wind Turbine Payback in Willacy County, TX
Wind turbine payback in Willacy 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 Willacy County, TX averages 6.4 m/s (14.3 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 22,669 kWh a year, worth $3,634 at TX's 16.03¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 28 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Willacy County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Willacy County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.6 m/s at the hub against 6.4 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,416 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,267, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 22¢/kWh, 1.4 times what TX pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.6 m/s instead of 6.4. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of TX
Willacy County is the 322nd 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 Willacy County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.20 m/s and about 2,337 kWh. September is the weakest, 5.32 m/s and 1,211 kWh, so the best month makes 1.9 times the worst. November to March brings in 45% of the year's output in Willacy County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.64 m/s | 2,076 kWh | $333 |
| February | 6.88 m/s | 2,007 kWh | $322 |
| March | 7.04 m/s | 2,322 kWh | $372 |
| April | 7.20 m/s | 2,337 kWh | $375 |
| May | 6.95 m/s | 2,267 kWh | $363 |
| June | 6.22 m/s | 1,754 kWh | $281 |
| July | 6.18 m/s | 1,784 kWh | $286 |
| August | 5.45 m/s | 1,334 kWh | $214 |
| September | 5.32 m/s | 1,211 kWh | $194 |
| October | 5.95 m/s | 1,640 kWh | $263 |
| November | 6.36 m/s | 1,837 kWh | $294 |
| December | 6.58 m/s | 2,036 kWh | $326 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Willacy County averages 5.25 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.01 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.180, typical of very open, smooth ground where height adds little. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 19,290 to 27,114 kWh a year, 41% 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 | 5.94 m/s | 19,290 kWh | 32 years |
| 30 m | 6.39 m/s | 22,626 kWh | 28 years |
| 40 m | 6.73 m/s | 25,122 kWh | 25 years |
| 50 m | 7.01 m/s | 27,114 kWh | 23 years |
Counties around Willacy County
None of the 6 closest counties is windier than Willacy County.
- Cameron County, TX: 6.36 m/s, 22,373 kWh, payback 28 years (27 mi)
- Kenedy County, TX: 6.4 m/s, 22,669 kWh, payback 28 years (28 mi)
- Hidalgo County, TX: 6.05 m/s, 20,075 kWh, payback 31 years (37 mi)
- Brooks County, TX: 5.96 m/s, 19,408 kWh, payback 32 years (54 mi)
- Kleberg County, TX: 6.18 m/s, 21,039 kWh, payback 30 years (66 mi)
- Starr County, TX: 6.05 m/s, 20,075 kWh, payback 31 years (71 mi)
Sun versus wind in Willacy County
Willacy 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 2,267. 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.