Wind Turbine Payback in Cloud County, KS
Wind turbine payback in Cloud 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 Cloud County, KS averages 6.29 m/s (14.1 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 21,855 kWh a year, worth $3,335 at KS's 15.26¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 30 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Cloud County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Cloud County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.8 m/s at the hub against 6.29 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,305 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,186, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 23¢/kWh, 1.5 times what KS pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.8 m/s instead of 6.29. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of KS
Cloud County is the 482nd 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 Cloud County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.16 m/s and about 2,316 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.32 m/s and 1,251 kWh, so the best month makes 1.9 times the worst. November to March brings in 43% of the year's output in Cloud County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.19 m/s | 1,793 kWh | $274 |
| February | 6.27 m/s | 1,665 kWh | $254 |
| March | 6.79 m/s | 2,166 kWh | $331 |
| April | 7.16 m/s | 2,316 kWh | $353 |
| May | 6.43 m/s | 1,944 kWh | $297 |
| June | 6.31 m/s | 1,811 kWh | $276 |
| July | 5.48 m/s | 1,348 kWh | $206 |
| August | 5.32 m/s | 1,251 kWh | $191 |
| September | 6.29 m/s | 1,794 kWh | $274 |
| October | 6.56 m/s | 2,027 kWh | $309 |
| November | 6.53 m/s | 1,940 kWh | $296 |
| December | 6.13 m/s | 1,753 kWh | $268 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Cloud County averages 4.9 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.06 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.227, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 17,742 to 27,471 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 | 5.73 m/s | 17,742 kWh | 37 years |
| 30 m | 6.29 m/s | 21,833 kWh | 30 years |
| 40 m | 6.71 m/s | 24,957 kWh | 26 years |
| 50 m | 7.06 m/s | 27,471 kWh | 24 years |
Counties around Cloud County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Jewell County, averages 6.4 m/s.
- Republic County, KS: 6.38 m/s, 22,521 kWh, payback 29 years (24 mi)
- Ottawa County, KS: 6.31 m/s, 22,003 kWh, payback 30 years (24 mi)
- Clay County, KS: 6.29 m/s, 21,855 kWh, payback 30 years (27 mi)
- Mitchell County, KS: 6.26 m/s, 21,632 kWh, payback 30 years (31 mi)
- Washington County, KS: 6.36 m/s, 22,373 kWh, payback 29 years (35 mi)
- Jewell County, KS: 6.4 m/s, 22,669 kWh, payback 29 years (37 mi)
Sun versus wind in Cloud County
Cloud County gets 4.47 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,305 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,186. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.7 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.