Wind Turbine Payback in Morton County, KS
Wind turbine payback in Morton 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 Morton 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 Morton County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Morton 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 1,472 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
Morton 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 Morton County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.36 m/s and about 2,429 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.90 m/s and 1,610 kWh, so the best month makes 1.5 times the worst. November to March brings in 42% of the year's output in Morton County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.32 m/s | 1,875 kWh | $286 |
| February | 6.59 m/s | 1,845 kWh | $282 |
| March | 6.90 m/s | 2,236 kWh | $341 |
| April | 7.36 m/s | 2,429 kWh | $371 |
| May | 6.75 m/s | 2,143 kWh | $327 |
| June | 6.86 m/s | 2,138 kWh | $326 |
| July | 6.09 m/s | 1,728 kWh | $264 |
| August | 5.90 m/s | 1,610 kWh | $246 |
| September | 6.65 m/s | 2,015 kWh | $307 |
| October | 6.59 m/s | 2,043 kWh | $312 |
| November | 6.80 m/s | 2,106 kWh | $321 |
| December | 6.45 m/s | 1,959 kWh | $299 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Morton County averages 5.2 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.37 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.217, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 20,009 to 29,645 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 | 20,009 kWh | 33 years |
| 30 m | 6.6 m/s | 24,118 kWh | 27 years |
| 40 m | 7.02 m/s | 27,197 kWh | 24 years |
| 50 m | 7.37 m/s | 29,645 kWh | 22 years |
Counties around Morton County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Cimarron County, averages 6.82 m/s.
- Stanton County, KS: 6.44 m/s, 22,964 kWh, payback 29 years (26 mi)
- Stevens County, KS: 6.54 m/s, 23,702 kWh, payback 28 years (27 mi)
- Texas County, OK: 6.63 m/s, 24,362 kWh, payback 30 years (35 mi)
- Grant County, KS: 6.43 m/s, 22,891 kWh, payback 29 years (38 mi)
- Baca County, CO: 6.65 m/s, 24,509 kWh, payback 24 years (41 mi)
- Cimarron County, OK: 6.82 m/s, 25,747 kWh, payback 28 years (49 mi)
Sun versus wind in Morton County
Morton County gets 5.04 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,472 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 1.6 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.