Wind Turbine Payback in Custer County, NE
Wind turbine payback in Custer 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 Custer County, NE averages 6.68 m/s (14.9 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 24,728 kWh a year, worth $3,195 at NE's 12.92¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 31 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Custer County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Custer County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.8 m/s at the hub against 6.68 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,291 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,473, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 20¢/kWh, 1.6 times what NE pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.8 m/s instead of 6.68. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of NE
Custer County is the 70th 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 Custer County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.35 m/s and about 2,423 kWh. July is the weakest, 5.62 m/s and 1,438 kWh, so the best month makes 1.7 times the worst. November to March brings in 46% of the year's output in Custer County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 7.10 m/s | 2,359 kWh | $305 |
| February | 6.99 m/s | 2,067 kWh | $267 |
| March | 7.09 m/s | 2,349 kWh | $303 |
| April | 7.35 m/s | 2,423 kWh | $313 |
| May | 6.71 m/s | 2,118 kWh | $274 |
| June | 6.16 m/s | 1,718 kWh | $222 |
| July | 5.62 m/s | 1,438 kWh | $186 |
| August | 5.63 m/s | 1,444 kWh | $187 |
| September | 6.58 m/s | 1,974 kWh | $255 |
| October | 6.99 m/s | 2,289 kWh | $296 |
| November | 7.02 m/s | 2,236 kWh | $289 |
| December | 7.03 m/s | 2,316 kWh | $299 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Custer County averages 5.29 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.45 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.213, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 20,661 to 30,195 kWh a year, 46% 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 | 6.13 m/s | 20,661 kWh | 38 years |
| 30 m | 6.68 m/s | 24,742 kWh | 31 years |
| 40 m | 7.1 m/s | 27,785 kWh | 28 years |
| 50 m | 7.45 m/s | 30,195 kWh | 26 years |
Counties around Custer County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Blaine County, averages 6.73 m/s.
- Loup County, NE: 6.72 m/s, 25,020 kWh, payback 31 years (37 mi)
- Dawson County, NE: 6.57 m/s, 23,922 kWh, payback 32 years (37 mi)
- Logan County, NE: 6.66 m/s, 24,582 kWh, payback 32 years (38 mi)
- Blaine County, NE: 6.73 m/s, 25,093 kWh, payback 31 years (40 mi)
- Valley County, NE: 6.57 m/s, 23,922 kWh, payback 32 years (40 mi)
- Sherman County, NE: 6.51 m/s, 23,481 kWh, payback 33 years (41 mi)
Sun versus wind in Custer County
Custer County gets 4.42 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,291 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,473. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.9 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.