Wind Turbine Payback in Ness County, KS
Wind turbine payback in Ness 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 Ness County, KS averages 6.5 m/s (14.5 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 23,407 kWh a year, worth $3,572 at KS's 15.26¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 28 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Ness County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Ness County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.8 m/s at the hub against 6.5 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,390 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,341, 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 6.5. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of KS
Ness County is the 208th 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 Ness County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.28 m/s and about 2,386 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.80 m/s and 1,550 kWh, so the best month makes 1.5 times the worst. November to March brings in 41% of the year's output in Ness County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.21 m/s | 1,809 kWh | $276 |
| February | 6.38 m/s | 1,725 kWh | $263 |
| March | 6.82 m/s | 2,189 kWh | $334 |
| April | 7.28 m/s | 2,386 kWh | $364 |
| May | 6.63 m/s | 2,067 kWh | $315 |
| June | 6.73 m/s | 2,060 kWh | $314 |
| July | 5.93 m/s | 1,628 kWh | $248 |
| August | 5.80 m/s | 1,550 kWh | $237 |
| September | 6.71 m/s | 2,049 kWh | $313 |
| October | 6.69 m/s | 2,106 kWh | $321 |
| November | 6.61 m/s | 1,990 kWh | $304 |
| December | 6.29 m/s | 1,854 kWh | $283 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Ness County averages 5.13 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.26 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.216, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 19,381 to 28,881 kWh a year, 49% 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 | 5.96 m/s | 19,381 kWh | 34 years |
| 30 m | 6.5 m/s | 23,419 kWh | 28 years |
| 40 m | 6.92 m/s | 26,457 kWh | 25 years |
| 50 m | 7.26 m/s | 28,881 kWh | 23 years |
Counties around Ness County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Pawnee County, averages 6.68 m/s.
- Hodgeman County, KS: 6.66 m/s, 24,582 kWh, payback 27 years (27 mi)
- Lane County, KS: 6.45 m/s, 23,038 kWh, payback 28 years (30 mi)
- Trego County, KS: 6.45 m/s, 23,038 kWh, payback 28 years (31 mi)
- Rush County, KS: 6.56 m/s, 23,849 kWh, payback 28 years (33 mi)
- Pawnee County, KS: 6.68 m/s, 24,728 kWh, payback 27 years (42 mi)
- Gove County, KS: 6.42 m/s, 22,817 kWh, payback 29 years (43 mi)
Sun versus wind in Ness County
Ness County gets 4.76 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,390 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,341. 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.