Wind Turbine Payback in Logan County, NE
Wind turbine payback in Logan 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 Logan County, NE averages 6.66 m/s (14.9 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 24,582 kWh a year, worth $3,176 at NE's 12.92¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 32 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Logan County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Logan County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.8 m/s at the hub against 6.66 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,317 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,458, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 20¢/kWh, 1.6 times what NE pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.8 m/s instead of 6.66. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of NE
Logan County is the 84th 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 Logan County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.30 m/s and about 2,397 kWh. July is the weakest, 5.63 m/s and 1,444 kWh, so the best month makes 1.7 times the worst. November to March brings in 46% of the year's output in Logan County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 7.09 m/s | 2,349 kWh | $303 |
| February | 6.96 m/s | 2,053 kWh | $265 |
| March | 7.03 m/s | 2,316 kWh | $299 |
| April | 7.30 m/s | 2,397 kWh | $310 |
| May | 6.65 m/s | 2,079 kWh | $269 |
| June | 6.12 m/s | 1,691 kWh | $218 |
| July | 5.63 m/s | 1,444 kWh | $187 |
| August | 5.65 m/s | 1,455 kWh | $188 |
| September | 6.48 m/s | 1,915 kWh | $247 |
| October | 6.92 m/s | 2,251 kWh | $291 |
| November | 7.00 m/s | 2,220 kWh | $287 |
| December | 7.01 m/s | 2,305 kWh | $298 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Logan County averages 5.27 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.42 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.213, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 20,478 to 29,989 kWh a year, 46% 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 | 6.1 m/s | 20,478 kWh | 38 years |
| 30 m | 6.66 m/s | 24,546 kWh | 32 years |
| 40 m | 7.08 m/s | 27,582 kWh | 28 years |
| 50 m | 7.42 m/s | 29,989 kWh | 26 years |
Counties around Logan County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Hooker County, averages 6.82 m/s.
- Thomas County, NE: 6.78 m/s, 25,457 kWh, payback 30 years (22 mi)
- Blaine County, NE: 6.73 m/s, 25,093 kWh, payback 31 years (35 mi)
- McPherson County, NE: 6.59 m/s, 24,069 kWh, payback 32 years (36 mi)
- Lincoln County, NE: 6.5 m/s, 23,407 kWh, payback 33 years (37 mi)
- Custer County, NE: 6.68 m/s, 24,728 kWh, payback 31 years (38 mi)
- Hooker County, NE: 6.82 m/s, 25,747 kWh, payback 30 years (43 mi)
Sun versus wind in Logan County
Logan County gets 4.51 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,317 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,458. 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.