Wind Turbine Payback in Osage County, OK
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, OK averages 6.16 m/s (13.8 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 20,891 kWh a year, worth $2,885 at OK's 13.81¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 35 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, 8.4 m/s at the hub against 6.16 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,334 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,089, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 24¢/kWh, 1.7 times what OK pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.4 m/s instead of 6.16. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of OK
Osage County is the 630th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in OK is Cimarron County at 6.82 m/s, payback 28 years.
Month by month in Osage County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.22 m/s and about 2,353 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.98 m/s and 1,054 kWh, so the best month makes 2.2 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 | 6.34 m/s | 1,889 kWh | $261 |
| February | 6.49 m/s | 1,787 kWh | $247 |
| March | 6.93 m/s | 2,254 kWh | $311 |
| April | 7.22 m/s | 2,353 kWh | $325 |
| May | 6.31 m/s | 1,867 kWh | $258 |
| June | 5.92 m/s | 1,574 kWh | $217 |
| July | 5.08 m/s | 1,111 kWh | $153 |
| August | 4.98 m/s | 1,054 kWh | $146 |
| September | 5.46 m/s | 1,296 kWh | $179 |
| October | 6.34 m/s | 1,889 kWh | $261 |
| November | 6.65 m/s | 2,012 kWh | $278 |
| December | 6.28 m/s | 1,850 kWh | $255 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Osage County averages 4.79 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.93 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.229, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 16,895 to 26,541 kWh a year, 57% 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 | 5.62 m/s | 16,895 kWh | 43 years |
| 30 m | 6.16 m/s | 20,927 kWh | 35 years |
| 40 m | 6.58 m/s | 24,031 kWh | 30 years |
| 50 m | 6.93 m/s | 26,541 kWh | 27 years |
Counties around Osage County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Kay County, averages 6.29 m/s.
- Pawnee County, OK: 6.21 m/s, 21,262 kWh, payback 34 years (27 mi)
- Washington County, OK: 5.9 m/s, 18,964 kWh, payback 38 years (28 mi)
- Chautauqua County, KS: 6.17 m/s, 20,965 kWh, payback 31 years (38 mi)
- Kay County, OK: 6.29 m/s, 21,855 kWh, payback 33 years (43 mi)
- Tulsa County, OK: 6.16 m/s, 20,891 kWh, payback 35 years (43 mi)
- Nowata County, OK: 6.03 m/s, 19,926 kWh, payback 36 years (45 mi)
Sun versus wind in Osage County
Osage County gets 4.57 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,334 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,089. 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.