Wind Turbine Payback in Allen County, KS
Wind turbine payback in Allen 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 Allen County, KS averages 6.03 m/s (13.5 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 19,926 kWh a year, worth $3,041 at KS's 15.26¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 33 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Allen County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Allen County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.8 m/s at the hub against 6.03 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,294 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,993, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 25¢/kWh, 1.6 times what KS pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.8 m/s instead of 6.03. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of KS
Allen County is the 791st windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in KS is Edwards County at 6.68 m/s, payback 27 years.
Month by month in Allen County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.08 m/s and about 2,268 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.75 m/s and 925 kWh, so the best month makes 2.5 times the worst. November to March brings in 48% of the year's output in Allen County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.36 m/s | 1,900 kWh | $290 |
| February | 6.42 m/s | 1,752 kWh | $267 |
| March | 6.80 m/s | 2,176 kWh | $332 |
| April | 7.08 m/s | 2,268 kWh | $346 |
| May | 6.07 m/s | 1,717 kWh | $262 |
| June | 5.65 m/s | 1,409 kWh | $215 |
| July | 4.77 m/s | 935 kWh | $143 |
| August | 4.75 m/s | 925 kWh | $141 |
| September | 5.32 m/s | 1,210 kWh | $185 |
| October | 6.25 m/s | 1,834 kWh | $280 |
| November | 6.56 m/s | 1,963 kWh | $300 |
| December | 6.29 m/s | 1,856 kWh | $283 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Allen County averages 4.63 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.81 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.240, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 15,789 to 25,675 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 | 5.47 m/s | 15,789 kWh | 42 years |
| 30 m | 6.02 m/s | 19,884 kWh | 33 years |
| 40 m | 6.45 m/s | 23,074 kWh | 28 years |
| 50 m | 6.81 m/s | 25,675 kWh | 26 years |
Counties around Allen County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Woodson County, averages 6.18 m/s.
- Neosho County, KS: 6.09 m/s, 20,371 kWh, payback 32 years (22 mi)
- Anderson County, KS: 6.03 m/s, 19,926 kWh, payback 33 years (23 mi)
- Bourbon County, KS: 6.03 m/s, 19,926 kWh, payback 33 years (25 mi)
- Woodson County, KS: 6.18 m/s, 21,039 kWh, payback 31 years (25 mi)
- Wilson County, KS: 6.09 m/s, 20,371 kWh, payback 32 years (33 mi)
- Coffey County, KS: 6.18 m/s, 21,039 kWh, payback 31 years (34 mi)
Sun versus wind in Allen County
Allen County gets 4.43 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,294 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,993. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.5 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.