Wind Turbine Payback in Hooker County, NE
Wind turbine payback in Hooker 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 Hooker County, NE averages 6.82 m/s (15.3 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 25,747 kWh a year, worth $3,327 at NE's 12.92¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 30 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Hooker County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Hooker County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.8 m/s at the hub against 6.82 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,340 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,575, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 19¢/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 6.82. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of NE
Hooker County is the 30th 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 Hooker County
January is the strongest month here, at 7.52 m/s and about 2,606 kWh. July is the weakest, 5.69 m/s and 1,482 kWh, so the best month makes 1.8 times the worst. November to March brings in 47% of the year's output in Hooker County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 7.52 m/s | 2,606 kWh | $337 |
| February | 7.23 m/s | 2,201 kWh | $284 |
| March | 7.20 m/s | 2,416 kWh | $312 |
| April | 7.34 m/s | 2,420 kWh | $313 |
| May | 6.68 m/s | 2,103 kWh | $272 |
| June | 6.14 m/s | 1,708 kWh | $221 |
| July | 5.69 m/s | 1,482 kWh | $191 |
| August | 5.76 m/s | 1,522 kWh | $197 |
| September | 6.53 m/s | 1,943 kWh | $251 |
| October | 7.09 m/s | 2,351 kWh | $304 |
| November | 7.30 m/s | 2,395 kWh | $309 |
| December | 7.43 m/s | 2,554 kWh | $330 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Hooker County averages 5.43 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.58 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.207, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 21,709 to 31,077 kWh a year, 43% 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 | 6.27 m/s | 21,709 kWh | 36 years |
| 30 m | 6.82 m/s | 25,743 kWh | 30 years |
| 40 m | 7.24 m/s | 28,726 kWh | 27 years |
| 50 m | 7.58 m/s | 31,077 kWh | 25 years |
Counties around Hooker County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Cherry County, averages 6.83 m/s.
- McPherson County, NE: 6.59 m/s, 24,069 kWh, payback 32 years (19 mi)
- Thomas County, NE: 6.78 m/s, 25,457 kWh, payback 30 years (31 mi)
- Grant County, NE: 6.73 m/s, 25,093 kWh, payback 31 years (33 mi)
- Arthur County, NE: 6.48 m/s, 23,260 kWh, payback 33 years (38 mi)
- Logan County, NE: 6.66 m/s, 24,582 kWh, payback 32 years (43 mi)
- Cherry County, NE: 6.83 m/s, 25,819 kWh, payback 30 years (45 mi)
Sun versus wind in Hooker County
Hooker 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 2,575. 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.