Wind Turbine Payback in Colfax County, NE
Wind turbine payback in Colfax 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 Colfax County, NE averages 6.45 m/s (14.4 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 23,038 kWh a year, worth $2,977 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 Colfax County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Colfax County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.8 m/s at the hub against 6.45 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,256 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,304, 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 6.45. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of NE
Colfax County is the 257th 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 Colfax County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.32 m/s and about 2,408 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.26 m/s and 1,219 kWh, so the best month makes 2.0 times the worst. November to March brings in 45% of the year's output in Colfax County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.72 m/s | 2,125 kWh | $275 |
| February | 6.73 m/s | 1,925 kWh | $249 |
| March | 6.94 m/s | 2,257 kWh | $292 |
| April | 7.32 m/s | 2,408 kWh | $311 |
| May | 6.65 m/s | 2,081 kWh | $269 |
| June | 6.10 m/s | 1,683 kWh | $217 |
| July | 5.26 m/s | 1,219 kWh | $157 |
| August | 5.26 m/s | 1,219 kWh | $157 |
| September | 6.36 m/s | 1,841 kWh | $238 |
| October | 6.72 m/s | 2,125 kWh | $275 |
| November | 6.81 m/s | 2,110 kWh | $273 |
| December | 6.60 m/s | 2,048 kWh | $265 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Colfax County averages 5.07 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.22 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.220, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 18,978 to 28,601 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 | 18,978 kWh | 41 years |
| 30 m | 6.45 m/s | 23,057 kWh | 34 years |
| 40 m | 6.87 m/s | 26,138 kWh | 30 years |
| 50 m | 7.22 m/s | 28,601 kWh | 27 years |
Counties around Colfax County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Stanton County, averages 6.54 m/s.
- Platte County, NE: 6.53 m/s, 23,628 kWh, payback 33 years (22 mi)
- Dodge County, NE: 6.45 m/s, 23,038 kWh, payback 34 years (23 mi)
- Stanton County, NE: 6.54 m/s, 23,702 kWh, payback 33 years (23 mi)
- Butler County, NE: 6.41 m/s, 22,743 kWh, payback 34 years (24 mi)
- Cuming County, NE: 6.54 m/s, 23,702 kWh, payback 33 years (28 mi)
- Saunders County, NE: 6.41 m/s, 22,743 kWh, payback 34 years (34 mi)
Sun versus wind in Colfax County
Colfax 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 2,304. 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.