Wind Turbine Payback in Brown County, KS
Wind turbine payback in Brown 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 Brown County, KS averages 6.2 m/s (13.9 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 21,187 kWh a year, worth $3,233 at KS's 15.26¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 31 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Brown County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Brown County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.8 m/s at the hub against 6.2 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,256 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,119, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 24¢/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 6.2. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of KS
Brown County is the 588th 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 Brown County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.10 m/s and about 2,280 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.92 m/s and 1,022 kWh, so the best month makes 2.2 times the worst. November to March brings in 47% of the year's output in Brown County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.49 m/s | 1,983 kWh | $303 |
| February | 6.47 m/s | 1,776 kWh | $271 |
| March | 6.84 m/s | 2,199 kWh | $336 |
| April | 7.10 m/s | 2,280 kWh | $348 |
| May | 6.28 m/s | 1,849 kWh | $282 |
| June | 5.90 m/s | 1,556 kWh | $237 |
| July | 5.05 m/s | 1,093 kWh | $167 |
| August | 4.92 m/s | 1,022 kWh | $156 |
| September | 5.88 m/s | 1,545 kWh | $236 |
| October | 6.46 m/s | 1,961 kWh | $299 |
| November | 6.68 m/s | 2,032 kWh | $310 |
| December | 6.39 m/s | 1,921 kWh | $293 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Brown County averages 4.83 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.96 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.227, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 17,148 to 26,756 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 | 5.65 m/s | 17,148 kWh | 38 years |
| 30 m | 6.2 m/s | 21,172 kWh | 31 years |
| 40 m | 6.62 m/s | 24,261 kWh | 27 years |
| 50 m | 6.96 m/s | 26,756 kWh | 25 years |
Counties around Brown County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Nemaha County, averages 6.34 m/s.
- Richardson County, NE: 6.2 m/s, 21,187 kWh, payback 37 years (22 mi)
- Doniphan County, KS: 6.07 m/s, 20,223 kWh, payback 32 years (23 mi)
- Nemaha County, KS: 6.34 m/s, 22,225 kWh, payback 30 years (23 mi)
- Atchison County, KS: 6.17 m/s, 20,965 kWh, payback 31 years (24 mi)
- Holt County, MO: 6.07 m/s, 20,223 kWh, payback 35 years (26 mi)
- Jackson County, KS: 6.17 m/s, 20,965 kWh, payback 31 years (31 mi)
Sun versus wind in Brown County
Brown County gets 4.3 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,256 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,119. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.7 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.