Wind Turbine Payback in Ellis County, KS
Wind turbine payback in Ellis 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 Ellis County, KS averages 6.46 m/s (14.5 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 23,112 kWh a year, worth $3,527 at KS's 15.26¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 28 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Ellis County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Ellis County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.8 m/s at the hub against 6.46 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,390 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,311, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 22¢/kWh, 1.4 times what KS pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.8 m/s instead of 6.46. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of KS
Ellis County is the 239th 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 Ellis County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.24 m/s and about 2,365 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.66 m/s and 1,461 kWh, so the best month makes 1.6 times the worst. November to March brings in 41% of the year's output in Ellis County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.24 m/s | 1,826 kWh | $279 |
| February | 6.37 m/s | 1,720 kWh | $262 |
| March | 6.84 m/s | 2,200 kWh | $336 |
| April | 7.24 m/s | 2,365 kWh | $361 |
| May | 6.57 m/s | 2,034 kWh | $310 |
| June | 6.61 m/s | 1,990 kWh | $304 |
| July | 5.83 m/s | 1,567 kWh | $239 |
| August | 5.66 m/s | 1,461 kWh | $223 |
| September | 6.64 m/s | 2,006 kWh | $306 |
| October | 6.67 m/s | 2,095 kWh | $320 |
| November | 6.56 m/s | 1,963 kWh | $300 |
| December | 6.30 m/s | 1,860 kWh | $284 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Ellis County averages 5.09 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.21 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.216, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 19,077 to 28,531 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 | 5.92 m/s | 19,077 kWh | 34 years |
| 30 m | 6.46 m/s | 23,088 kWh | 28 years |
| 40 m | 6.87 m/s | 26,114 kWh | 25 years |
| 50 m | 7.21 m/s | 28,531 kWh | 23 years |
Counties around Ellis County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Barton County, averages 6.58 m/s.
- Rush County, KS: 6.56 m/s, 23,849 kWh, payback 28 years (27 mi)
- Russell County, KS: 6.43 m/s, 22,891 kWh, payback 29 years (29 mi)
- Trego County, KS: 6.45 m/s, 23,038 kWh, payback 28 years (29 mi)
- Rooks County, KS: 6.33 m/s, 22,151 kWh, payback 30 years (30 mi)
- Osborne County, KS: 6.27 m/s, 21,706 kWh, payback 30 years (42 mi)
- Barton County, KS: 6.58 m/s, 23,996 kWh, payback 27 years (42 mi)
Sun versus wind in Ellis County
Ellis County gets 4.76 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,390 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,311. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.7 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.