Wind Turbine Payback in Kiowa County, KS
Wind turbine payback in Kiowa 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 Kiowa County, KS averages 6.6 m/s (14.8 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 24,142 kWh a year, worth $3,684 at KS's 15.26¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 27 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Kiowa County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Kiowa County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.8 m/s at the hub against 6.6 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,416 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,414, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 21¢/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 6.6. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of KS
Kiowa County is the 114th 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 Kiowa County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.48 m/s and about 2,498 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.81 m/s and 1,552 kWh, so the best month makes 1.6 times the worst. November to March brings in 42% of the year's output in Kiowa County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.36 m/s | 1,901 kWh | $290 |
| February | 6.50 m/s | 1,798 kWh | $274 |
| March | 7.00 m/s | 2,300 kWh | $351 |
| April | 7.48 m/s | 2,498 kWh | $381 |
| May | 6.75 m/s | 2,141 kWh | $327 |
| June | 6.78 m/s | 2,093 kWh | $319 |
| July | 5.94 m/s | 1,636 kWh | $250 |
| August | 5.81 m/s | 1,552 kWh | $237 |
| September | 6.61 m/s | 1,991 kWh | $304 |
| October | 6.76 m/s | 2,152 kWh | $328 |
| November | 6.75 m/s | 2,072 kWh | $316 |
| December | 6.46 m/s | 1,962 kWh | $299 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Kiowa County averages 5.2 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.38 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.218, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 20,028 to 29,714 kWh a year, 48% 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 | 6.04 m/s | 20,028 kWh | 33 years |
| 30 m | 6.6 m/s | 24,159 kWh | 27 years |
| 40 m | 7.03 m/s | 27,254 kWh | 24 years |
| 50 m | 7.38 m/s | 29,714 kWh | 22 years |
Counties around Kiowa County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Edwards County, averages 6.68 m/s.
- Edwards County, KS: 6.68 m/s, 24,728 kWh, payback 27 years (22 mi)
- Comanche County, KS: 6.38 m/s, 22,521 kWh, payback 29 years (26 mi)
- Pratt County, KS: 6.53 m/s, 23,628 kWh, payback 28 years (30 mi)
- Ford County, KS: 6.58 m/s, 23,996 kWh, payback 27 years (34 mi)
- Clark County, KS: 6.46 m/s, 23,112 kWh, payback 28 years (37 mi)
- Barber County, KS: 6.3 m/s, 21,929 kWh, payback 30 years (40 mi)
Sun versus wind in Kiowa County
Kiowa County gets 4.85 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,416 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,414. 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.