Wind Turbine Payback in Elk County, KS
Wind turbine payback in Elk 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 Elk County, KS averages 6.26 m/s (14 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 21,632 kWh a year, worth $3,301 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 Elk County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Elk County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.8 m/s at the hub against 6.26 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,314 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,163, 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 6.26. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of KS
Elk County is the 520th 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 Elk County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.33 m/s and about 2,412 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.07 m/s and 1,104 kWh, so the best month makes 2.2 times the worst. November to March brings in 47% of the year's output in Elk County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.46 m/s | 1,966 kWh | $300 |
| February | 6.54 m/s | 1,816 kWh | $277 |
| March | 7.00 m/s | 2,295 kWh | $350 |
| April | 7.33 m/s | 2,412 kWh | $368 |
| May | 6.34 m/s | 1,887 kWh | $288 |
| June | 6.02 m/s | 1,631 kWh | $249 |
| July | 5.14 m/s | 1,145 kWh | $175 |
| August | 5.07 m/s | 1,104 kWh | $168 |
| September | 5.66 m/s | 1,416 kWh | $216 |
| October | 6.48 m/s | 1,977 kWh | $302 |
| November | 6.73 m/s | 2,063 kWh | $315 |
| December | 6.41 m/s | 1,932 kWh | $295 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Elk County averages 4.86 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.04 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.230, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 17,508 to 27,328 kWh a year, 56% 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 | 5.7 m/s | 17,508 kWh | 37 years |
| 30 m | 6.26 m/s | 21,629 kWh | 30 years |
| 40 m | 6.69 m/s | 24,785 kWh | 26 years |
| 50 m | 7.04 m/s | 27,328 kWh | 24 years |
Counties around Elk County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Butler County, averages 6.48 m/s.
- Chautauqua County, KS: 6.17 m/s, 20,965 kWh, payback 31 years (21 mi)
- Wilson County, KS: 6.09 m/s, 20,371 kWh, payback 32 years (28 mi)
- Greenwood County, KS: 6.33 m/s, 22,151 kWh, payback 30 years (29 mi)
- Montgomery County, KS: 6.03 m/s, 19,926 kWh, payback 33 years (33 mi)
- Cowley County, KS: 6.29 m/s, 21,855 kWh, payback 30 years (36 mi)
- Butler County, KS: 6.48 m/s, 23,260 kWh, payback 28 years (39 mi)
Sun versus wind in Elk County
Elk County gets 4.5 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,314 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,163. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.6 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.