Wind Turbine Payback in Pierce County, NE
Wind turbine payback in Pierce 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 Pierce County, NE averages 6.66 m/s (14.9 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 24,582 kWh a year, worth $3,176 at NE's 12.92¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 32 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Pierce County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Pierce County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.8 m/s at the hub against 6.66 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,226 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,458, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 20¢/kWh, 1.6 times what NE pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.8 m/s instead of 6.66. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of NE
Pierce County is the 84th 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 Pierce County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.35 m/s and about 2,427 kWh. July is the weakest, 5.57 m/s and 1,403 kWh, so the best month makes 1.7 times the worst. November to March brings in 45% of the year's output in Pierce County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.99 m/s | 2,288 kWh | $296 |
| February | 6.90 m/s | 2,022 kWh | $261 |
| March | 7.07 m/s | 2,342 kWh | $303 |
| April | 7.35 m/s | 2,427 kWh | $314 |
| May | 6.79 m/s | 2,167 kWh | $280 |
| June | 6.22 m/s | 1,755 kWh | $227 |
| July | 5.57 m/s | 1,403 kWh | $181 |
| August | 5.58 m/s | 1,414 kWh | $183 |
| September | 6.72 m/s | 2,054 kWh | $265 |
| October | 6.97 m/s | 2,277 kWh | $294 |
| November | 6.99 m/s | 2,214 kWh | $286 |
| December | 6.83 m/s | 2,194 kWh | $283 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Pierce County averages 5.28 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.42 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.211, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 20,561 to 29,989 kWh a year, 46% 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 | 6.12 m/s | 20,561 kWh | 38 years |
| 30 m | 6.66 m/s | 24,595 kWh | 32 years |
| 40 m | 7.08 m/s | 27,604 kWh | 28 years |
| 50 m | 7.42 m/s | 29,989 kWh | 26 years |
Counties around Pierce County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Antelope County, averages 6.71 m/s.
- Antelope County, NE: 6.71 m/s, 24,947 kWh, payback 31 years (24 mi)
- Madison County, NE: 6.67 m/s, 24,655 kWh, payback 31 years (25 mi)
- Wayne County, NE: 6.54 m/s, 23,702 kWh, payback 33 years (25 mi)
- Knox County, NE: 6.62 m/s, 24,289 kWh, payback 32 years (29 mi)
- Cedar County, NE: 6.66 m/s, 24,582 kWh, payback 32 years (29 mi)
- Stanton County, NE: 6.54 m/s, 23,702 kWh, payback 33 years (34 mi)
Sun versus wind in Pierce County
Pierce County gets 4.2 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,226 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,458. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 2.0 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.