Wind Turbine Payback in Barber County, KS
Wind turbine payback in Barber 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 Barber County, KS averages 6.3 m/s (14.1 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 21,929 kWh a year, worth $3,346 at KS's 15.26¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 30 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Barber County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Barber County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.8 m/s at the hub against 6.3 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,387 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,193, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 23¢/kWh, 1.5 times what KS pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.8 m/s instead of 6.3. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of KS
Barber County is the 474th 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 Barber County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.17 m/s and about 2,320 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.60 m/s and 1,425 kWh, so the best month makes 1.6 times the worst. November to March brings in 41% of the year's output in Barber County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.08 m/s | 1,725 kWh | $263 |
| February | 6.15 m/s | 1,599 kWh | $244 |
| March | 6.70 m/s | 2,115 kWh | $323 |
| April | 7.17 m/s | 2,320 kWh | $354 |
| May | 6.50 m/s | 1,988 kWh | $303 |
| June | 6.48 m/s | 1,913 kWh | $292 |
| July | 5.73 m/s | 1,502 kWh | $229 |
| August | 5.60 m/s | 1,425 kWh | $217 |
| September | 6.19 m/s | 1,734 kWh | $265 |
| October | 6.46 m/s | 1,960 kWh | $299 |
| November | 6.46 m/s | 1,902 kWh | $290 |
| December | 6.06 m/s | 1,708 kWh | $261 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Barber County averages 4.89 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.08 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.230, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 17,746 to 27,613 kWh a year, 56% 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 | 5.73 m/s | 17,746 kWh | 37 years |
| 30 m | 6.3 m/s | 21,893 kWh | 30 years |
| 40 m | 6.73 m/s | 25,062 kWh | 26 years |
| 50 m | 7.08 m/s | 27,613 kWh | 24 years |
Counties around Barber County
5 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Pratt County, averages 6.53 m/s.
- Pratt County, KS: 6.53 m/s, 23,628 kWh, payback 28 years (29 mi)
- Comanche County, KS: 6.38 m/s, 22,521 kWh, payback 29 years (31 mi)
- Harper County, KS: 6.27 m/s, 21,706 kWh, payback 30 years (34 mi)
- Woods County, OK: 6.46 m/s, 23,112 kWh, payback 31 years (36 mi)
- Kingman County, KS: 6.45 m/s, 23,038 kWh, payback 28 years (37 mi)
- Alfalfa County, OK: 6.31 m/s, 22,003 kWh, payback 33 years (39 mi)
Sun versus wind in Barber County
Barber County gets 4.75 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,387 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,193. 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.