Wind Turbine Payback in Garfield County, NE
Wind turbine payback in Garfield 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 Garfield County, NE averages 6.73 m/s (15.1 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 25,093 kWh a year, worth $3,242 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 Garfield County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Garfield County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.8 m/s at the hub against 6.73 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,270 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,509, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 20¢/kWh, 1.5 times what NE pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.8 m/s instead of 6.73. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of NE
Garfield County is the 46th 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 Garfield County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.37 m/s and about 2,435 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.60 m/s and 1,423 kWh, so the best month makes 1.7 times the worst. November to March brings in 46% of the year's output in Garfield County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 7.14 m/s | 2,383 kWh | $308 |
| February | 7.04 m/s | 2,094 kWh | $271 |
| March | 7.13 m/s | 2,378 kWh | $307 |
| April | 7.37 m/s | 2,435 kWh | $315 |
| May | 6.79 m/s | 2,170 kWh | $280 |
| June | 6.22 m/s | 1,753 kWh | $226 |
| July | 5.61 m/s | 1,429 kWh | $185 |
| August | 5.60 m/s | 1,423 kWh | $184 |
| September | 6.75 m/s | 2,073 kWh | $268 |
| October | 7.04 m/s | 2,318 kWh | $299 |
| November | 7.08 m/s | 2,270 kWh | $293 |
| December | 7.04 m/s | 2,318 kWh | $299 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Garfield County averages 5.33 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.5 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.212, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 21,008 to 30,536 kWh a year, 45% 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 | 6.18 m/s | 21,008 kWh | 37 years |
| 30 m | 6.73 m/s | 25,095 kWh | 31 years |
| 40 m | 7.15 m/s | 28,133 kWh | 28 years |
| 50 m | 7.5 m/s | 30,536 kWh | 25 years |
Counties around Garfield County
None of the 6 closest counties is windier than Garfield County.
- Wheeler County, NE: 6.73 m/s, 25,093 kWh, payback 31 years (22 mi)
- Valley County, NE: 6.57 m/s, 23,922 kWh, payback 32 years (24 mi)
- Loup County, NE: 6.72 m/s, 25,020 kWh, payback 31 years (29 mi)
- Greeley County, NE: 6.57 m/s, 23,922 kWh, payback 32 years (32 mi)
- Holt County, NE: 6.68 m/s, 24,728 kWh, payback 31 years (39 mi)
- Rock County, NE: 6.73 m/s, 25,093 kWh, payback 31 years (41 mi)
Sun versus wind in Garfield County
Garfield County gets 4.35 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,270 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,509. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 2.0 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.