Wind Turbine Payback in Geary County, KS
Wind turbine payback in Geary 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 Geary County, KS averages 6.35 m/s (14.2 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 22,299 kWh a year, worth $3,403 at KS's 15.26¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 29 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Geary County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Geary County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.8 m/s at the hub against 6.35 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,273 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,230, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 22¢/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 6.35. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of KS
Geary County is the 402nd 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 Geary County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.27 m/s and about 2,382 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.33 m/s and 1,257 kWh, so the best month makes 1.9 times the worst. November to March brings in 44% of the year's output in Geary County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.35 m/s | 1,891 kWh | $289 |
| February | 6.42 m/s | 1,749 kWh | $267 |
| March | 6.93 m/s | 2,252 kWh | $344 |
| April | 7.27 m/s | 2,382 kWh | $363 |
| May | 6.44 m/s | 1,953 kWh | $298 |
| June | 6.35 m/s | 1,830 kWh | $279 |
| July | 5.44 m/s | 1,327 kWh | $203 |
| August | 5.33 m/s | 1,257 kWh | $192 |
| September | 6.17 m/s | 1,721 kWh | $263 |
| October | 6.61 m/s | 2,059 kWh | $314 |
| November | 6.68 m/s | 2,035 kWh | $311 |
| December | 6.31 m/s | 1,868 kWh | $285 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Geary County averages 4.99 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.11 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.220, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 18,314 to 27,826 kWh a year, 52% 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 | 5.81 m/s | 18,314 kWh | 36 years |
| 30 m | 6.35 m/s | 22,330 kWh | 29 years |
| 40 m | 6.77 m/s | 25,380 kWh | 26 years |
| 50 m | 7.11 m/s | 27,826 kWh | 24 years |
Counties around Geary County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Morris County, averages 6.46 m/s.
- Riley County, KS: 6.29 m/s, 21,855 kWh, payback 30 years (20 mi)
- Morris County, KS: 6.46 m/s, 23,112 kWh, payback 28 years (23 mi)
- Dickinson County, KS: 6.35 m/s, 22,299 kWh, payback 29 years (23 mi)
- Wabaunsee County, KS: 6.28 m/s, 21,781 kWh, payback 30 years (31 mi)
- Clay County, KS: 6.29 m/s, 21,855 kWh, payback 30 years (32 mi)
- Pottawatomie County, KS: 6.24 m/s, 21,484 kWh, payback 31 years (35 mi)
Sun versus wind in Geary County
Geary County gets 4.36 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,273 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,230. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.8 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.