Wind Turbine Payback in Grant County, NE
Wind turbine payback in Grant 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 Grant 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 Grant County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Grant 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 1,340 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
Grant 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 Grant County
January is the strongest month here, at 7.40 m/s and about 2,533 kWh. July is the weakest, 5.65 m/s and 1,456 kWh, so the best month makes 1.7 times the worst. November to March brings in 47% of the year's output in Grant County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 7.40 m/s | 2,533 kWh | $327 |
| February | 7.17 m/s | 2,168 kWh | $280 |
| March | 7.14 m/s | 2,384 kWh | $308 |
| April | 7.25 m/s | 2,370 kWh | $306 |
| May | 6.58 m/s | 2,037 kWh | $263 |
| June | 6.09 m/s | 1,676 kWh | $217 |
| July | 5.65 m/s | 1,456 kWh | $188 |
| August | 5.72 m/s | 1,501 kWh | $194 |
| September | 6.39 m/s | 1,857 kWh | $240 |
| October | 6.97 m/s | 2,281 kWh | $295 |
| November | 7.15 m/s | 2,313 kWh | $299 |
| December | 7.30 m/s | 2,475 kWh | $320 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Grant County averages 5.35 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.49 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.209, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 21,073 to 30,468 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 | 21,073 kWh | 37 years |
| 30 m | 6.73 m/s | 25,104 kWh | 31 years |
| 40 m | 7.15 m/s | 28,100 kWh | 28 years |
| 50 m | 7.49 m/s | 30,468 kWh | 25 years |
Counties around Grant County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Hooker County, averages 6.82 m/s.
- Arthur County, NE: 6.48 m/s, 23,260 kWh, payback 33 years (24 mi)
- Hooker County, NE: 6.82 m/s, 25,747 kWh, payback 30 years (33 mi)
- Garden County, NE: 6.34 m/s, 22,225 kWh, payback 35 years (34 mi)
- McPherson County, NE: 6.59 m/s, 24,069 kWh, payback 32 years (38 mi)
- Keith County, NE: 6.3 m/s, 21,929 kWh, payback 35 years (50 mi)
- Sheridan County, NE: 6.61 m/s, 24,216 kWh, payback 32 years (52 mi)
Sun versus wind in Grant County
Grant County gets 4.59 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,340 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 1.9 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.