Wind Turbine Payback in Pawnee County, NE
Wind turbine payback in Pawnee 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 Pawnee County, NE averages 6.34 m/s (14.2 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 22,225 kWh a year, worth $2,871 at NE's 12.92¢/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 Pawnee County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Pawnee County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.8 m/s at the hub against 6.34 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,259 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,223, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 22¢/kWh, 1.7 times what NE pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.8 m/s instead of 6.34. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of NE
Pawnee County is the 420th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in NE is Cherry County at 6.83 m/s, payback 30 years.
Month by month in Pawnee County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.21 m/s and about 2,346 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.12 m/s and 1,132 kWh, so the best month makes 2.1 times the worst. November to March brings in 46% of the year's output in Pawnee County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.57 m/s | 2,032 kWh | $263 |
| February | 6.54 m/s | 1,820 kWh | $235 |
| March | 6.93 m/s | 2,252 kWh | $291 |
| April | 7.21 m/s | 2,346 kWh | $303 |
| May | 6.44 m/s | 1,948 kWh | $252 |
| June | 6.09 m/s | 1,673 kWh | $216 |
| July | 5.24 m/s | 1,206 kWh | $156 |
| August | 5.12 m/s | 1,132 kWh | $146 |
| September | 6.10 m/s | 1,679 kWh | $217 |
| October | 6.61 m/s | 2,054 kWh | $265 |
| November | 6.77 m/s | 2,089 kWh | $270 |
| December | 6.45 m/s | 1,959 kWh | $253 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Pawnee County averages 4.95 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.11 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.225, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 18,119 to 27,826 kWh a year, 54% 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 | 5.79 m/s | 18,119 kWh | 43 years |
| 30 m | 6.34 m/s | 22,210 kWh | 35 years |
| 40 m | 6.76 m/s | 25,325 kWh | 31 years |
| 50 m | 7.11 m/s | 27,826 kWh | 28 years |
Counties around Pawnee County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Gage County, averages 6.42 m/s.
- Johnson County, NE: 6.31 m/s, 22,003 kWh, payback 35 years (18 mi)
- Gage County, NE: 6.42 m/s, 22,817 kWh, payback 34 years (25 mi)
- Nemaha County, NE: 6.17 m/s, 20,965 kWh, payback 37 years (27 mi)
- Nemaha County, KS: 6.34 m/s, 22,225 kWh, payback 30 years (27 mi)
- Richardson County, NE: 6.2 m/s, 21,187 kWh, payback 37 years (28 mi)
- Marshall County, KS: 6.34 m/s, 22,225 kWh, payback 30 years (29 mi)
Sun versus wind in Pawnee County
Pawnee County gets 4.31 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,259 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,223. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.8 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.