Wind Turbine Payback in Butler County, NE
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, NE averages 6.41 m/s (14.3 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 22,743 kWh a year, worth $2,938 at NE's 12.92¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 34 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, 8.8 m/s at the hub against 6.41 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,256 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,274, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 22¢/kWh, 1.7 times what NE pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.8 m/s instead of 6.41. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of NE
Butler County is the 309th 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 Butler County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.30 m/s and about 2,395 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.23 m/s and 1,196 kWh, so the best month makes 2.0 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 | 6.65 m/s | 2,079 kWh | $269 |
| February | 6.65 m/s | 1,883 kWh | $243 |
| March | 6.92 m/s | 2,250 kWh | $291 |
| April | 7.30 m/s | 2,395 kWh | $309 |
| May | 6.61 m/s | 2,057 kWh | $266 |
| June | 6.13 m/s | 1,697 kWh | $219 |
| July | 5.27 m/s | 1,223 kWh | $158 |
| August | 5.23 m/s | 1,196 kWh | $155 |
| September | 6.30 m/s | 1,801 kWh | $233 |
| October | 6.69 m/s | 2,107 kWh | $272 |
| November | 6.79 m/s | 2,098 kWh | $271 |
| December | 6.52 m/s | 2,001 kWh | $259 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Butler County averages 5.03 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.18 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.221, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 18,697 to 28,320 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 | 5.86 m/s | 18,697 kWh | 41 years |
| 30 m | 6.41 m/s | 22,769 kWh | 34 years |
| 40 m | 6.83 m/s | 25,852 kWh | 30 years |
| 50 m | 7.18 m/s | 28,320 kWh | 27 years |
Counties around Butler County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Platte County, averages 6.53 m/s.
- Polk County, NE: 6.51 m/s, 23,481 kWh, payback 33 years (23 mi)
- Colfax County, NE: 6.45 m/s, 23,038 kWh, payback 34 years (24 mi)
- Seward County, NE: 6.41 m/s, 22,743 kWh, payback 34 years (24 mi)
- Saunders County, NE: 6.41 m/s, 22,743 kWh, payback 34 years (25 mi)
- Platte County, NE: 6.53 m/s, 23,628 kWh, payback 33 years (31 mi)
- York County, NE: 6.51 m/s, 23,481 kWh, payback 33 years (34 mi)
Sun versus wind in Butler County
Butler 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 2,274. 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.