Wind Turbine Payback in Osage County, KS
Wind turbine payback in Osage 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 Osage County, KS averages 6.22 m/s (13.9 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 21,336 kWh a year, worth $3,256 at KS's 15.26¢/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 Osage County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Osage County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.8 m/s at the hub against 6.22 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,276 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,134, 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 6.22. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of KS
Osage County is the 566th 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 Osage County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.24 m/s and about 2,362 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.94 m/s and 1,032 kWh, so the best month makes 2.3 times the worst. November to March brings in 47% of the year's output in Osage County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.51 m/s | 1,994 kWh | $304 |
| February | 6.52 m/s | 1,806 kWh | $276 |
| March | 6.95 m/s | 2,269 kWh | $346 |
| April | 7.24 m/s | 2,362 kWh | $360 |
| May | 6.28 m/s | 1,849 kWh | $282 |
| June | 5.97 m/s | 1,599 kWh | $244 |
| July | 5.03 m/s | 1,083 kWh | $165 |
| August | 4.94 m/s | 1,032 kWh | $157 |
| September | 5.68 m/s | 1,427 kWh | $218 |
| October | 6.48 m/s | 1,977 kWh | $302 |
| November | 6.74 m/s | 2,069 kWh | $316 |
| December | 6.44 m/s | 1,949 kWh | $297 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Osage County averages 4.85 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.99 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.227, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 17,326 to 26,971 kWh a year, 56% 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 | 5.68 m/s | 17,326 kWh | 38 years |
| 30 m | 6.22 m/s | 21,370 kWh | 31 years |
| 40 m | 6.64 m/s | 24,470 kWh | 27 years |
| 50 m | 6.99 m/s | 26,971 kWh | 24 years |
Counties around Osage County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Lyon County, averages 6.38 m/s.
- Franklin County, KS: 6.06 m/s, 20,149 kWh, payback 33 years (24 mi)
- Shawnee County, KS: 6.15 m/s, 20,816 kWh, payback 32 years (27 mi)
- Lyon County, KS: 6.38 m/s, 22,521 kWh, payback 29 years (28 mi)
- Douglas County, KS: 6.06 m/s, 20,149 kWh, payback 33 years (28 mi)
- Coffey County, KS: 6.18 m/s, 21,039 kWh, payback 31 years (29 mi)
- Wabaunsee County, KS: 6.28 m/s, 21,781 kWh, payback 30 years (34 mi)
Sun versus wind in Osage County
Osage County gets 4.37 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,276 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,134. 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.