Wind Turbine Payback in Chase County, KS
Wind turbine payback in Chase 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 Chase County, KS averages 6.46 m/s (14.5 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 23,112 kWh a year, worth $3,527 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 Chase County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Chase County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.8 m/s at the hub against 6.46 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,296 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,311, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 22¢/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 6.46. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of KS
Chase County is the 239th 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 Chase County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.42 m/s and about 2,466 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.39 m/s and 1,293 kWh, so the best month makes 1.9 times the worst. November to March brings in 44% of the year's output in Chase County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.51 m/s | 1,995 kWh | $304 |
| February | 6.56 m/s | 1,827 kWh | $279 |
| March | 7.06 m/s | 2,331 kWh | $356 |
| April | 7.42 m/s | 2,466 kWh | $376 |
| May | 6.54 m/s | 2,012 kWh | $307 |
| June | 6.42 m/s | 1,877 kWh | $286 |
| July | 5.49 m/s | 1,358 kWh | $207 |
| August | 5.39 m/s | 1,293 kWh | $197 |
| September | 6.19 m/s | 1,735 kWh | $265 |
| October | 6.73 m/s | 2,129 kWh | $325 |
| November | 6.84 m/s | 2,129 kWh | $325 |
| December | 6.48 m/s | 1,973 kWh | $301 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Chase County averages 5.07 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.23 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 18,998 to 28,671 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 | 5.9 m/s | 18,998 kWh | 35 years |
| 30 m | 6.46 m/s | 23,099 kWh | 28 years |
| 40 m | 6.88 m/s | 26,196 kWh | 25 years |
| 50 m | 7.23 m/s | 28,671 kWh | 23 years |
Counties around Chase County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Butler County, averages 6.48 m/s.
- Lyon County, KS: 6.38 m/s, 22,521 kWh, payback 29 years (26 mi)
- Morris County, KS: 6.46 m/s, 23,112 kWh, payback 28 years (27 mi)
- Marion County, KS: 6.46 m/s, 23,112 kWh, payback 28 years (28 mi)
- Greenwood County, KS: 6.33 m/s, 22,151 kWh, payback 30 years (35 mi)
- Butler County, KS: 6.48 m/s, 23,260 kWh, payback 28 years (39 mi)
- Coffey County, KS: 6.18 m/s, 21,039 kWh, payback 31 years (47 mi)
Sun versus wind in Chase County
Chase County gets 4.44 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,296 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,311. 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.