Wind Turbine Payback in Norton County, KS
Wind turbine payback in Norton 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 Norton County, KS averages 6.31 m/s (14.1 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 22,003 kWh a year, worth $3,358 at KS's 15.26¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 30 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Norton County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Norton County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.8 m/s at the hub against 6.31 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,355 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,200, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 23¢/kWh, 1.5 times what KS pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.8 m/s instead of 6.31. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of KS
Norton County is the 460th 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 Norton County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.10 m/s and about 2,282 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.50 m/s and 1,364 kWh, so the best month makes 1.7 times the worst. November to March brings in 42% of the year's output in Norton County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.25 m/s | 1,833 kWh | $280 |
| February | 6.33 m/s | 1,701 kWh | $260 |
| March | 6.67 m/s | 2,096 kWh | $320 |
| April | 7.10 m/s | 2,282 kWh | $348 |
| May | 6.47 m/s | 1,967 kWh | $300 |
| June | 6.20 m/s | 1,741 kWh | $266 |
| July | 5.62 m/s | 1,435 kWh | $219 |
| August | 5.50 m/s | 1,364 kWh | $208 |
| September | 6.37 m/s | 1,844 kWh | $281 |
| October | 6.54 m/s | 2,012 kWh | $307 |
| November | 6.42 m/s | 1,877 kWh | $286 |
| December | 6.23 m/s | 1,816 kWh | $277 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Norton County averages 4.95 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.06 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.221, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 17,975 to 27,471 kWh a year, 53% 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 | 5.77 m/s | 17,975 kWh | 37 years |
| 30 m | 6.31 m/s | 21,976 kWh | 30 years |
| 40 m | 6.72 m/s | 25,022 kWh | 26 years |
| 50 m | 7.06 m/s | 27,471 kWh | 24 years |
Counties around Norton County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Graham County, averages 6.4 m/s.
- Furnas County, NE: 6.31 m/s, 22,003 kWh, payback 35 years (28 mi)
- Phillips County, KS: 6.34 m/s, 22,225 kWh, payback 30 years (30 mi)
- Graham County, KS: 6.4 m/s, 22,669 kWh, payback 29 years (30 mi)
- Decatur County, KS: 6.29 m/s, 21,855 kWh, payback 30 years (30 mi)
- Harlan County, NE: 6.34 m/s, 22,225 kWh, payback 35 years (38 mi)
- Red Willow County, NE: 6.29 m/s, 21,855 kWh, payback 35 years (40 mi)
Sun versus wind in Norton County
Norton County gets 4.64 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,355 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,200. 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.