Wind Turbine Payback in Dakota County, NE
Wind turbine payback in Dakota 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 Dakota County, NE averages 6.4 m/s (14.3 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 22,669 kWh a year, worth $2,929 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 Dakota County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Dakota County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.8 m/s at the hub against 6.4 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,215 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,267, 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 6.4. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of NE
Dakota County is the 322nd 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 Dakota County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.25 m/s and about 2,367 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.32 m/s and 1,254 kWh, so the best month makes 1.9 times the worst. November to March brings in 45% of the year's output in Dakota County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.58 m/s | 2,036 kWh | $263 |
| February | 6.59 m/s | 1,849 kWh | $239 |
| March | 6.86 m/s | 2,213 kWh | $286 |
| April | 7.25 m/s | 2,367 kWh | $306 |
| May | 6.64 m/s | 2,075 kWh | $268 |
| June | 6.04 m/s | 1,643 kWh | $212 |
| July | 5.33 m/s | 1,259 kWh | $163 |
| August | 5.32 m/s | 1,254 kWh | $162 |
| September | 6.39 m/s | 1,856 kWh | $240 |
| October | 6.71 m/s | 2,119 kWh | $274 |
| November | 6.69 m/s | 2,040 kWh | $264 |
| December | 6.44 m/s | 1,952 kWh | $252 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Dakota County averages 5.05 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.14 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.215, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 18,693 to 28,038 kWh a year, 50% 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 | 5.86 m/s | 18,693 kWh | 41 years |
| 30 m | 6.4 m/s | 22,649 kWh | 34 years |
| 40 m | 6.81 m/s | 25,642 kWh | 30 years |
| 50 m | 7.14 m/s | 28,038 kWh | 28 years |
Counties around Dakota County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Wayne County, averages 6.54 m/s.
- Dixon County, NE: 6.52 m/s, 23,554 kWh, payback 33 years (16 mi)
- Thurston County, NE: 6.39 m/s, 22,595 kWh, payback 34 years (16 mi)
- Woodbury County, IA: 6.4 m/s, 22,669 kWh, payback 30 years (26 mi)
- Plymouth County, IA: 6.4 m/s, 22,669 kWh, payback 30 years (30 mi)
- Union County, SD: 6.4 m/s, 22,669 kWh, payback 30 years (31 mi)
- Wayne County, NE: 6.54 m/s, 23,702 kWh, payback 33 years (31 mi)
Sun versus wind in Dakota County
Dakota County gets 4.16 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,215 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,267. 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.