Wind Turbine Payback in Butler County, KS
Wind turbine payback in Butler 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 Butler County, KS averages 6.48 m/s (14.5 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 23,260 kWh a year, worth $3,549 at KS's 15.26¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 28 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Butler County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Butler County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.8 m/s at the hub against 6.48 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,314 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,326, 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 6.48. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of KS
Butler County is the 228th 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 Butler County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.47 m/s and about 2,494 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.37 m/s and 1,286 kWh, so the best month makes 1.9 times the worst. November to March brings in 45% of the year's output in Butler County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.56 m/s | 2,027 kWh | $309 |
| February | 6.58 m/s | 1,841 kWh | $281 |
| March | 7.08 m/s | 2,345 kWh | $358 |
| April | 7.47 m/s | 2,494 kWh | $381 |
| May | 6.57 m/s | 2,032 kWh | $310 |
| June | 6.40 m/s | 1,864 kWh | $284 |
| July | 5.50 m/s | 1,362 kWh | $208 |
| August | 5.37 m/s | 1,286 kWh | $196 |
| September | 6.12 m/s | 1,695 kWh | $259 |
| October | 6.74 m/s | 2,138 kWh | $326 |
| November | 6.88 m/s | 2,154 kWh | $329 |
| December | 6.51 m/s | 1,993 kWh | $304 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Butler County averages 5.08 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.26 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.222, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 19,139 to 28,881 kWh a year, 51% 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 | 5.92 m/s | 19,139 kWh | 34 years |
| 30 m | 6.48 m/s | 23,272 kWh | 28 years |
| 40 m | 6.91 m/s | 26,391 kWh | 25 years |
| 50 m | 7.26 m/s | 28,881 kWh | 23 years |
Counties around Butler County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Harvey County, averages 6.53 m/s.
- Greenwood County, KS: 6.33 m/s, 22,151 kWh, payback 30 years (33 mi)
- Sedgwick County, KS: 6.41 m/s, 22,743 kWh, payback 29 years (35 mi)
- Cowley County, KS: 6.29 m/s, 21,855 kWh, payback 30 years (37 mi)
- Harvey County, KS: 6.53 m/s, 23,628 kWh, payback 28 years (38 mi)
- Chase County, KS: 6.46 m/s, 23,112 kWh, payback 28 years (39 mi)
- Elk County, KS: 6.26 m/s, 21,632 kWh, payback 30 years (39 mi)
Sun versus wind in Butler County
Butler County gets 4.5 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,314 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,326. 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.