Wind Turbine Payback in Meade County, SD
Wind turbine payback in Meade 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 Meade County, SD averages 6.32 m/s (14.1 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 22,077 kWh a year, worth $3,219 at SD's 14.58¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 31 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Meade County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Meade County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.1 m/s at the hub against 6.32 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,253 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,208, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 23¢/kWh, 1.6 times what SD pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.1 m/s instead of 6.32. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of SD
Meade County is the 452nd windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in SD is Todd County at 6.77 m/s, payback 27 years.
Month by month in Meade County
January is the strongest month here, at 6.73 m/s and about 2,129 kWh. July is the weakest, 5.60 m/s and 1,422 kWh, so the best month makes 1.5 times the worst. November to March brings in 44% of the year's output in Meade County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.73 m/s | 2,129 kWh | $310 |
| February | 6.29 m/s | 1,675 kWh | $244 |
| March | 6.60 m/s | 2,051 kWh | $299 |
| April | 6.68 m/s | 2,034 kWh | $297 |
| May | 6.47 m/s | 1,967 kWh | $287 |
| June | 5.90 m/s | 1,560 kWh | $227 |
| July | 5.60 m/s | 1,422 kWh | $207 |
| August | 5.66 m/s | 1,460 kWh | $213 |
| September | 6.18 m/s | 1,729 kWh | $252 |
| October | 6.70 m/s | 2,113 kWh | $308 |
| November | 6.45 m/s | 1,893 kWh | $276 |
| December | 6.49 m/s | 1,984 kWh | $289 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Meade County averages 5 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.04 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 18,166 to 27,328 kWh a year, 50% 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 | 5.79 m/s | 18,166 kWh | 38 years |
| 30 m | 6.31 m/s | 22,034 kWh | 31 years |
| 40 m | 6.71 m/s | 24,971 kWh | 28 years |
| 50 m | 7.04 m/s | 27,328 kWh | 25 years |
Counties around Meade County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Perkins County, averages 6.58 m/s.
- Pennington County, SD: 5.76 m/s, 17,932 kWh, payback 38 years (42 mi)
- Butte County, SD: 6.15 m/s, 20,816 kWh, payback 33 years (44 mi)
- Lawrence County, SD: 5.27 m/s, 14,397 kWh, payback 48 years (57 mi)
- Ziebach County, SD: 6.41 m/s, 22,743 kWh, payback 30 years (58 mi)
- Perkins County, SD: 6.58 m/s, 23,996 kWh, payback 29 years (62 mi)
- Haakon County, SD: 6.3 m/s, 21,929 kWh, payback 31 years (62 mi)
Sun versus wind in Meade County
Meade County gets 4.29 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,253 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,208. 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.