Wind Turbine Payback in Pratt County, KS
Wind turbine payback in Pratt 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 Pratt County, KS averages 6.53 m/s (14.6 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 23,628 kWh a year, worth $3,606 at KS's 15.26¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 28 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Pratt County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Pratt County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.8 m/s at the hub against 6.53 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,387 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,363, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 21¢/kWh, 1.4 times what KS pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.8 m/s instead of 6.53. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of KS
Pratt County is the 165th 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 Pratt County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.41 m/s and about 2,459 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.76 m/s and 1,522 kWh, so the best month makes 1.6 times the worst. November to March brings in 42% of the year's output in Pratt County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.37 m/s | 1,904 kWh | $291 |
| February | 6.45 m/s | 1,765 kWh | $269 |
| March | 6.94 m/s | 2,258 kWh | $345 |
| April | 7.41 m/s | 2,459 kWh | $375 |
| May | 6.65 m/s | 2,082 kWh | $318 |
| June | 6.67 m/s | 2,026 kWh | $309 |
| July | 5.87 m/s | 1,589 kWh | $242 |
| August | 5.76 m/s | 1,522 kWh | $232 |
| September | 6.49 m/s | 1,918 kWh | $293 |
| October | 6.75 m/s | 2,143 kWh | $327 |
| November | 6.74 m/s | 2,069 kWh | $316 |
| December | 6.40 m/s | 1,926 kWh | $294 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Pratt County averages 5.12 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.32 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.222, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 19,502 to 29,299 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 | 5.97 m/s | 19,502 kWh | 34 years |
| 30 m | 6.54 m/s | 23,666 kWh | 28 years |
| 40 m | 6.97 m/s | 26,801 kWh | 25 years |
| 50 m | 7.32 m/s | 29,299 kWh | 22 years |
Counties around Pratt County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Edwards County, averages 6.68 m/s.
- Stafford County, KS: 6.66 m/s, 24,582 kWh, payback 27 years (27 mi)
- Barber County, KS: 6.3 m/s, 21,929 kWh, payback 30 years (29 mi)
- Kiowa County, KS: 6.6 m/s, 24,142 kWh, payback 27 years (30 mi)
- Kingman County, KS: 6.45 m/s, 23,038 kWh, payback 28 years (33 mi)
- Edwards County, KS: 6.68 m/s, 24,728 kWh, payback 27 years (35 mi)
- Reno County, KS: 6.59 m/s, 24,069 kWh, payback 27 years (42 mi)
Sun versus wind in Pratt County
Pratt County gets 4.75 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,387 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,363. 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.