Wind Turbine Payback in McPherson County, NE
Wind turbine payback in McPherson 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 McPherson County, NE averages 6.59 m/s (14.7 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 24,069 kWh a year, worth $3,110 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 McPherson County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in McPherson County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.8 m/s at the hub against 6.59 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,340 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,407, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 21¢/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 6.59. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of NE
McPherson County is the 119th 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 McPherson County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.21 m/s and about 2,348 kWh. July is the weakest, 5.58 m/s and 1,412 kWh, so the best month makes 1.7 times the worst. November to March brings in 46% of the year's output in McPherson County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 7.07 m/s | 2,340 kWh | $302 |
| February | 6.94 m/s | 2,040 kWh | $264 |
| March | 6.99 m/s | 2,291 kWh | $296 |
| April | 7.21 m/s | 2,348 kWh | $303 |
| May | 6.54 m/s | 2,014 kWh | $260 |
| June | 6.04 m/s | 1,643 kWh | $212 |
| July | 5.58 m/s | 1,412 kWh | $182 |
| August | 5.59 m/s | 1,418 kWh | $183 |
| September | 6.33 m/s | 1,818 kWh | $235 |
| October | 6.84 m/s | 2,198 kWh | $284 |
| November | 6.93 m/s | 2,180 kWh | $282 |
| December | 7.00 m/s | 2,296 kWh | $297 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in McPherson County averages 5.22 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.34 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.212, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 20,031 to 29,437 kWh a year, 47% 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 | 20,031 kWh | 39 years |
| 30 m | 6.59 m/s | 24,044 kWh | 32 years |
| 40 m | 7 m/s | 27,049 kWh | 29 years |
| 50 m | 7.34 m/s | 29,437 kWh | 26 years |
Counties around McPherson County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Hooker County, averages 6.82 m/s.
- Hooker County, NE: 6.82 m/s, 25,747 kWh, payback 30 years (19 mi)
- Arthur County, NE: 6.48 m/s, 23,260 kWh, payback 33 years (30 mi)
- Thomas County, NE: 6.78 m/s, 25,457 kWh, payback 30 years (34 mi)
- Logan County, NE: 6.66 m/s, 24,582 kWh, payback 32 years (36 mi)
- Grant County, NE: 6.73 m/s, 25,093 kWh, payback 31 years (38 mi)
- Keith County, NE: 6.3 m/s, 21,929 kWh, payback 35 years (41 mi)
Sun versus wind in McPherson County
McPherson 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 2,407. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.8 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.