Wind Turbine Payback in Graham County, KS
Wind turbine payback in Graham 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 Graham County, KS averages 6.4 m/s (14.3 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 22,669 kWh a year, worth $3,459 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 Graham County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Graham County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.8 m/s at the hub against 6.4 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,355 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,267, 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 6.4. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of KS
Graham County is the 322nd 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 Graham County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.15 m/s and about 2,309 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.63 m/s and 1,440 kWh, so the best month makes 1.6 times the worst. November to March brings in 42% of the year's output in Graham County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.31 m/s | 1,867 kWh | $285 |
| February | 6.37 m/s | 1,722 kWh | $263 |
| March | 6.74 m/s | 2,135 kWh | $326 |
| April | 7.15 m/s | 2,309 kWh | $352 |
| May | 6.51 m/s | 1,996 kWh | $305 |
| June | 6.39 m/s | 1,856 kWh | $283 |
| July | 5.75 m/s | 1,518 kWh | $232 |
| August | 5.63 m/s | 1,440 kWh | $220 |
| September | 6.54 m/s | 1,948 kWh | $297 |
| October | 6.62 m/s | 2,063 kWh | $315 |
| November | 6.54 m/s | 1,948 kWh | $297 |
| December | 6.33 m/s | 1,884 kWh | $287 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Graham County averages 5.04 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.16 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.218, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 18,695 to 28,179 kWh a year, 51% 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 | 5.86 m/s | 18,695 kWh | 35 years |
| 30 m | 6.41 m/s | 22,709 kWh | 29 years |
| 40 m | 6.82 m/s | 25,747 kWh | 26 years |
| 50 m | 7.16 m/s | 28,179 kWh | 23 years |
Counties around Graham County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Trego County, averages 6.45 m/s.
- Norton County, KS: 6.31 m/s, 22,003 kWh, payback 30 years (30 mi)
- Rooks County, KS: 6.33 m/s, 22,151 kWh, payback 30 years (30 mi)
- Trego County, KS: 6.45 m/s, 23,038 kWh, payback 28 years (30 mi)
- Sheridan County, KS: 6.44 m/s, 22,964 kWh, payback 29 years (30 mi)
- Phillips County, KS: 6.34 m/s, 22,225 kWh, payback 30 years (41 mi)
- Decatur County, KS: 6.29 m/s, 21,855 kWh, payback 30 years (43 mi)
Sun versus wind in Graham County
Graham County gets 4.64 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,355 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,267. 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.