Wind Turbine Payback in Dundy County, NE
Wind turbine payback in Dundy 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 Dundy County, NE averages 6.15 m/s (13.8 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 20,816 kWh a year, worth $2,689 at NE's 12.92¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 37 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Dundy County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Dundy County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.8 m/s at the hub against 6.15 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,364 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,082, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 24¢/kWh, 1.9 times what NE pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.8 m/s instead of 6.15. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of NE
Dundy County is the 638th 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 Dundy County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.80 m/s and about 2,106 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.43 m/s and 1,318 kWh, so the best month makes 1.6 times the worst. November to March brings in 44% of the year's output in Dundy County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.29 m/s | 1,859 kWh | $240 |
| February | 6.30 m/s | 1,684 kWh | $218 |
| March | 6.51 m/s | 1,993 kWh | $257 |
| April | 6.80 m/s | 2,106 kWh | $272 |
| May | 6.20 m/s | 1,797 kWh | $232 |
| June | 5.88 m/s | 1,549 kWh | $200 |
| July | 5.46 m/s | 1,340 kWh | $173 |
| August | 5.43 m/s | 1,318 kWh | $170 |
| September | 6.03 m/s | 1,636 kWh | $211 |
| October | 6.33 m/s | 1,881 kWh | $243 |
| November | 6.38 m/s | 1,853 kWh | $239 |
| December | 6.27 m/s | 1,842 kWh | $238 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Dundy County averages 4.82 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.89 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.222, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 16,921 to 26,253 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 | 5.62 m/s | 16,921 kWh | 46 years |
| 30 m | 6.15 m/s | 20,826 kWh | 37 years |
| 40 m | 6.56 m/s | 23,827 kWh | 33 years |
| 50 m | 6.89 m/s | 26,253 kWh | 30 years |
Counties around Dundy County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Hayes County, averages 6.27 m/s.
- Chase County, NE: 6.23 m/s, 21,410 kWh, payback 36 years (24 mi)
- Cheyenne County, KS: 6.15 m/s, 20,816 kWh, payback 32 years (27 mi)
- Hitchcock County, NE: 6.24 m/s, 21,484 kWh, payback 36 years (34 mi)
- Yuma County, CO: 6.12 m/s, 20,594 kWh, payback 29 years (41 mi)
- Hayes County, NE: 6.27 m/s, 21,706 kWh, payback 36 years (41 mi)
- Rawlins County, KS: 6.24 m/s, 21,484 kWh, payback 31 years (42 mi)
Sun versus wind in Dundy County
Dundy 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 2,082. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.5 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.