Wind Turbine Payback in Barton County, KS
Wind turbine payback in Barton 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 Barton County, KS averages 6.58 m/s (14.7 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 23,996 kWh a year, worth $3,662 at KS's 15.26¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 27 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Barton County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Barton County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.8 m/s at the hub against 6.58 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,361 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,400, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 21¢/kWh, 1.4 times what KS pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.8 m/s instead of 6.58. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of KS
Barton County is the 126th 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 Barton County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.43 m/s and about 2,472 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.75 m/s and 1,516 kWh, so the best month makes 1.6 times the worst. November to March brings in 41% of the year's output in Barton County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.36 m/s | 1,899 kWh | $290 |
| February | 6.47 m/s | 1,776 kWh | $271 |
| March | 6.98 m/s | 2,282 kWh | $348 |
| April | 7.43 m/s | 2,472 kWh | $377 |
| May | 6.68 m/s | 2,101 kWh | $321 |
| June | 6.81 m/s | 2,113 kWh | $322 |
| July | 5.91 m/s | 1,617 kWh | $247 |
| August | 5.75 m/s | 1,516 kWh | $231 |
| September | 6.69 m/s | 2,038 kWh | $311 |
| October | 6.81 m/s | 2,184 kWh | $333 |
| November | 6.73 m/s | 2,060 kWh | $314 |
| December | 6.41 m/s | 1,933 kWh | $295 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Barton County averages 5.19 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.35 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.216, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 19,928 to 29,506 kWh a year, 48% 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 | 6.03 m/s | 19,928 kWh | 33 years |
| 30 m | 6.58 m/s | 24,011 kWh | 27 years |
| 40 m | 7 m/s | 27,073 kWh | 24 years |
| 50 m | 7.35 m/s | 29,506 kWh | 22 years |
Counties around Barton County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Pawnee County, averages 6.68 m/s.
- Rush County, KS: 6.56 m/s, 23,849 kWh, payback 28 years (29 mi)
- Russell County, KS: 6.43 m/s, 22,891 kWh, payback 29 years (30 mi)
- Stafford County, KS: 6.66 m/s, 24,582 kWh, payback 27 years (31 mi)
- Rice County, KS: 6.54 m/s, 23,702 kWh, payback 28 years (32 mi)
- Pawnee County, KS: 6.68 m/s, 24,728 kWh, payback 27 years (33 mi)
- Ellsworth County, KS: 6.54 m/s, 23,702 kWh, payback 28 years (34 mi)
Sun versus wind in Barton County
Barton County gets 4.66 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,361 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,400. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.8 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.