Wind Turbine Payback in Buffalo County, NE
Wind turbine payback in Buffalo 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 Buffalo County, NE averages 6.56 m/s (14.7 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 23,849 kWh a year, worth $3,081 at NE's 12.92¢/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 Buffalo County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Buffalo County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.8 m/s at the hub against 6.56 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,323 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,385, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 21¢/kWh, 1.6 times what NE pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.8 m/s instead of 6.56. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of NE
Buffalo County is the 139th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in NE is Cherry County at 6.83 m/s, payback 30 years.
Month by month in Buffalo County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.35 m/s and about 2,425 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.49 m/s and 1,356 kWh, so the best month makes 1.8 times the worst. November to March brings in 45% of the year's output in Buffalo County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.80 m/s | 2,172 kWh | $281 |
| February | 6.80 m/s | 1,962 kWh | $253 |
| March | 7.00 m/s | 2,298 kWh | $297 |
| April | 7.35 m/s | 2,425 kWh | $313 |
| May | 6.64 m/s | 2,078 kWh | $268 |
| June | 6.21 m/s | 1,750 kWh | $226 |
| July | 5.51 m/s | 1,367 kWh | $177 |
| August | 5.49 m/s | 1,356 kWh | $175 |
| September | 6.55 m/s | 1,951 kWh | $252 |
| October | 6.83 m/s | 2,194 kWh | $283 |
| November | 6.85 m/s | 2,134 kWh | $276 |
| December | 6.73 m/s | 2,133 kWh | $276 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Buffalo County averages 5.16 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.34 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.219, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 19,745 to 29,437 kWh a year, 49% 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 | 6.01 m/s | 19,745 kWh | 39 years |
| 30 m | 6.56 m/s | 23,872 kWh | 32 years |
| 40 m | 6.99 m/s | 26,971 kWh | 29 years |
| 50 m | 7.34 m/s | 29,437 kWh | 26 years |
Counties around Buffalo County
None of the 6 closest counties is windier than Buffalo County.
- Kearney County, NE: 6.56 m/s, 23,849 kWh, payback 33 years (25 mi)
- Sherman County, NE: 6.51 m/s, 23,481 kWh, payback 33 years (26 mi)
- Phelps County, NE: 6.49 m/s, 23,333 kWh, payback 33 years (29 mi)
- Hall County, NE: 6.51 m/s, 23,481 kWh, payback 33 years (30 mi)
- Adams County, NE: 6.56 m/s, 23,849 kWh, payback 33 years (38 mi)
- Howard County, NE: 6.51 m/s, 23,481 kWh, payback 33 years (38 mi)
Sun versus wind in Buffalo County
Buffalo County gets 4.53 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,323 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,385. 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.