Wind Turbine Payback in Chase County, NE
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, NE averages 6.23 m/s (13.9 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 21,410 kWh a year, worth $2,766 at NE's 12.92¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 36 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, 8.8 m/s at the hub against 6.23 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,364 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,141, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 23¢/kWh, 1.8 times what NE pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.8 m/s instead of 6.23. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of NE
Chase County is the 550th 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 Chase County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.90 m/s and about 2,166 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.41 m/s and 1,309 kWh, so the best month makes 1.7 times the worst. November to March brings in 45% of the year's output in Chase County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.51 m/s | 1,995 kWh | $258 |
| February | 6.47 m/s | 1,776 kWh | $229 |
| March | 6.61 m/s | 2,056 kWh | $266 |
| April | 6.90 m/s | 2,166 kWh | $280 |
| May | 6.24 m/s | 1,827 kWh | $236 |
| June | 5.85 m/s | 1,529 kWh | $198 |
| July | 5.45 m/s | 1,331 kWh | $172 |
| August | 5.41 m/s | 1,309 kWh | $169 |
| September | 5.98 m/s | 1,605 kWh | $207 |
| October | 6.42 m/s | 1,939 kWh | $251 |
| November | 6.48 m/s | 1,914 kWh | $247 |
| December | 6.45 m/s | 1,956 kWh | $253 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Chase County averages 4.87 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.98 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.224, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 17,381 to 26,900 kWh a year, 55% 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 | 5.68 m/s | 17,381 kWh | 45 years |
| 30 m | 6.23 m/s | 21,375 kWh | 36 years |
| 40 m | 6.64 m/s | 24,433 kWh | 32 years |
| 50 m | 6.98 m/s | 26,900 kWh | 29 years |
Counties around Chase County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Perkins County, averages 6.3 m/s.
- Perkins County, NE: 6.3 m/s, 21,929 kWh, payback 35 years (23 mi)
- Dundy County, NE: 6.15 m/s, 20,816 kWh, payback 37 years (24 mi)
- Hayes County, NE: 6.27 m/s, 21,706 kWh, payback 36 years (34 mi)
- Phillips County, CO: 6.16 m/s, 20,891 kWh, payback 29 years (34 mi)
- Sedgwick County, CO: 6.2 m/s, 21,187 kWh, payback 28 years (42 mi)
- Hitchcock County, NE: 6.24 m/s, 21,484 kWh, payback 36 years (42 mi)
Sun versus wind in Chase County
Chase County gets 4.67 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,364 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,141. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.6 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.