Wind Turbine Payback in Phelps County, NE
Wind turbine payback in Phelps 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 Phelps County, NE averages 6.49 m/s (14.5 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 23,333 kWh a year, worth $3,015 at NE's 12.92¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 33 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Phelps County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Phelps County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.8 m/s at the hub against 6.49 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,323 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,333, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 21¢/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 6.49. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of NE
Phelps County is the 219th 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 Phelps County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.34 m/s and about 2,422 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.51 m/s and 1,369 kWh, so the best month makes 1.8 times the worst. November to March brings in 43% of the year's output in Phelps County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.53 m/s | 2,007 kWh | $259 |
| February | 6.62 m/s | 1,863 kWh | $241 |
| March | 6.94 m/s | 2,262 kWh | $292 |
| April | 7.34 m/s | 2,422 kWh | $313 |
| May | 6.66 m/s | 2,085 kWh | $269 |
| June | 6.32 m/s | 1,812 kWh | $234 |
| July | 5.59 m/s | 1,418 kWh | $183 |
| August | 5.51 m/s | 1,369 kWh | $177 |
| September | 6.52 m/s | 1,937 kWh | $250 |
| October | 6.74 m/s | 2,135 kWh | $276 |
| November | 6.67 m/s | 2,029 kWh | $262 |
| December | 6.48 m/s | 1,974 kWh | $255 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Phelps County averages 5.11 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.26 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.218, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 19,300 to 28,881 kWh a year, 50% 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 | 5.95 m/s | 19,300 kWh | 40 years |
| 30 m | 6.49 m/s | 23,370 kWh | 33 years |
| 40 m | 6.92 m/s | 26,435 kWh | 29 years |
| 50 m | 7.26 m/s | 28,881 kWh | 27 years |
Counties around Phelps County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Dawson County, averages 6.57 m/s.
- Gosper County, NE: 6.37 m/s, 22,447 kWh, payback 35 years (22 mi)
- Harlan County, NE: 6.34 m/s, 22,225 kWh, payback 35 years (23 mi)
- Kearney County, NE: 6.56 m/s, 23,849 kWh, payback 33 years (24 mi)
- Buffalo County, NE: 6.56 m/s, 23,849 kWh, payback 33 years (29 mi)
- Dawson County, NE: 6.57 m/s, 23,922 kWh, payback 32 years (32 mi)
- Franklin County, NE: 6.38 m/s, 22,521 kWh, payback 34 years (33 mi)
Sun versus wind in Phelps County
Phelps County gets 4.53 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,323 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,333. 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.