Wind Turbine Payback in Kingman County, KS
Wind turbine payback in Kingman 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 Kingman County, KS averages 6.45 m/s (14.4 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 23,038 kWh a year, worth $3,516 at KS's 15.26¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 28 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Kingman County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Kingman County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.8 m/s at the hub against 6.45 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,387 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,304, 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 6.45. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of KS
Kingman County is the 257th 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 Kingman County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.35 m/s and about 2,425 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.62 m/s and 1,435 kWh, so the best month makes 1.7 times the worst. November to March brings in 42% of the year's output in Kingman County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.31 m/s | 1,872 kWh | $286 |
| February | 6.36 m/s | 1,716 kWh | $262 |
| March | 6.87 m/s | 2,216 kWh | $338 |
| April | 7.35 m/s | 2,425 kWh | $370 |
| May | 6.56 m/s | 2,028 kWh | $309 |
| June | 6.57 m/s | 1,968 kWh | $300 |
| July | 5.76 m/s | 1,524 kWh | $233 |
| August | 5.62 m/s | 1,435 kWh | $219 |
| September | 6.32 m/s | 1,817 kWh | $277 |
| October | 6.69 m/s | 2,106 kWh | $321 |
| November | 6.71 m/s | 2,049 kWh | $313 |
| December | 6.29 m/s | 1,855 kWh | $283 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Kingman County averages 5.04 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.23 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.224, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 18,879 to 28,671 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 | 5.89 m/s | 18,879 kWh | 35 years |
| 30 m | 6.45 m/s | 23,026 kWh | 29 years |
| 40 m | 6.88 m/s | 26,163 kWh | 25 years |
| 50 m | 7.23 m/s | 28,671 kWh | 23 years |
Counties around Kingman County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Reno County, averages 6.59 m/s.
- Harper County, KS: 6.27 m/s, 21,706 kWh, payback 30 years (26 mi)
- Reno County, KS: 6.59 m/s, 24,069 kWh, payback 27 years (28 mi)
- Pratt County, KS: 6.53 m/s, 23,628 kWh, payback 28 years (33 mi)
- Barber County, KS: 6.3 m/s, 21,929 kWh, payback 30 years (37 mi)
- Sedgwick County, KS: 6.41 m/s, 22,743 kWh, payback 29 years (38 mi)
- Sumner County, KS: 6.29 m/s, 21,855 kWh, payback 30 years (42 mi)
Sun versus wind in Kingman County
Kingman County gets 4.75 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,387 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,304. 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.