Wind Turbine Payback in Hayes County, NE
Wind turbine payback in Hayes 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 Hayes County, NE averages 6.27 m/s (14 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 21,706 kWh a year, worth $2,804 at NE's 12.92¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 36 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Hayes County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Hayes County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.8 m/s at the hub against 6.27 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,364 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,171, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 23¢/kWh, 1.8 times what NE pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.8 m/s instead of 6.27. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of NE
Hayes County is the 510th 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 Hayes County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.98 m/s and about 2,212 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 44% of the year's output in Hayes County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.41 m/s | 1,932 kWh | $250 |
| February | 6.44 m/s | 1,760 kWh | $227 |
| March | 6.62 m/s | 2,066 kWh | $267 |
| April | 6.98 m/s | 2,212 kWh | $286 |
| May | 6.36 m/s | 1,898 kWh | $245 |
| June | 5.96 m/s | 1,598 kWh | $206 |
| July | 5.56 m/s | 1,400 kWh | $181 |
| August | 5.46 m/s | 1,340 kWh | $173 |
| September | 6.13 m/s | 1,701 kWh | $220 |
| October | 6.47 m/s | 1,971 kWh | $255 |
| November | 6.44 m/s | 1,886 kWh | $244 |
| December | 6.36 m/s | 1,898 kWh | $245 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Hayes County averages 4.91 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.02 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.222, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 17,696 to 27,186 kWh a year, 54% 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 | 5.73 m/s | 17,696 kWh | 44 years |
| 30 m | 6.27 m/s | 21,687 kWh | 36 years |
| 40 m | 6.68 m/s | 24,733 kWh | 31 years |
| 50 m | 7.02 m/s | 27,186 kWh | 29 years |
Counties around Hayes County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Lincoln County, averages 6.5 m/s.
- Hitchcock County, NE: 6.24 m/s, 21,484 kWh, payback 36 years (25 mi)
- Frontier County, NE: 6.31 m/s, 22,003 kWh, payback 35 years (34 mi)
- Chase County, NE: 6.23 m/s, 21,410 kWh, payback 36 years (34 mi)
- Perkins County, NE: 6.3 m/s, 21,929 kWh, payback 35 years (38 mi)
- Lincoln County, NE: 6.5 m/s, 23,407 kWh, payback 33 years (39 mi)
- Red Willow County, NE: 6.29 m/s, 21,855 kWh, payback 35 years (40 mi)
Sun versus wind in Hayes County
Hayes County gets 4.67 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,364 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,171. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.6 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.