Wind Turbine Payback in Harlan County, NE
Wind turbine payback in Harlan 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 Harlan County, NE averages 6.34 m/s (14.2 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 22,225 kWh a year, worth $2,871 at NE's 12.92¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 35 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Harlan County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Harlan County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.8 m/s at the hub against 6.34 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,323 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,223, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 22¢/kWh, 1.7 times what NE pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.8 m/s instead of 6.34. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of NE
Harlan County is the 420th 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 Harlan County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.20 m/s and about 2,338 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.46 m/s and 1,340 kWh, so the best month makes 1.7 times the worst. November to March brings in 42% of the year's output in Harlan County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.25 m/s | 1,831 kWh | $237 |
| February | 6.38 m/s | 1,725 kWh | $223 |
| March | 6.76 m/s | 2,150 kWh | $278 |
| April | 7.20 m/s | 2,338 kWh | $302 |
| May | 6.54 m/s | 2,011 kWh | $260 |
| June | 6.28 m/s | 1,788 kWh | $231 |
| July | 5.58 m/s | 1,411 kWh | $182 |
| August | 5.46 m/s | 1,340 kWh | $173 |
| September | 6.41 m/s | 1,870 kWh | $242 |
| October | 6.58 m/s | 2,039 kWh | $263 |
| November | 6.46 m/s | 1,903 kWh | $246 |
| December | 6.23 m/s | 1,820 kWh | $235 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Harlan County averages 4.98 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.09 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.219, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 18,233 to 27,684 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 | 5.8 m/s | 18,233 kWh | 43 years |
| 30 m | 6.34 m/s | 22,222 kWh | 35 years |
| 40 m | 6.75 m/s | 25,252 kWh | 31 years |
| 50 m | 7.09 m/s | 27,684 kWh | 28 years |
Counties around Harlan County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Kearney County, averages 6.56 m/s.
- Franklin County, NE: 6.38 m/s, 22,521 kWh, payback 34 years (23 mi)
- Phelps County, NE: 6.49 m/s, 23,333 kWh, payback 33 years (23 mi)
- Furnas County, NE: 6.31 m/s, 22,003 kWh, payback 35 years (27 mi)
- Phillips County, KS: 6.34 m/s, 22,225 kWh, payback 30 years (27 mi)
- Gosper County, NE: 6.37 m/s, 22,447 kWh, payback 35 years (32 mi)
- Kearney County, NE: 6.56 m/s, 23,849 kWh, payback 33 years (33 mi)
Sun versus wind in Harlan County
Harlan County gets 4.53 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,323 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,223. 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.