Wind Turbine Payback in Reno County, KS
Wind turbine payback in Reno 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 Reno County, KS averages 6.59 m/s (14.7 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 24,069 kWh a year, worth $3,673 at KS's 15.26¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 27 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Reno County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Reno County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.8 m/s at the hub against 6.59 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,387 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,407, 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 6.59. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of KS
Reno County is the 119th 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 Reno County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.49 m/s and about 2,506 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.72 m/s and 1,500 kWh, so the best month makes 1.7 times the worst. November to March brings in 42% of the year's output in Reno County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.44 m/s | 1,949 kWh | $297 |
| February | 6.50 m/s | 1,796 kWh | $274 |
| March | 7.01 m/s | 2,303 kWh | $351 |
| April | 7.49 m/s | 2,506 kWh | $382 |
| May | 6.70 m/s | 2,111 kWh | $322 |
| June | 6.73 m/s | 2,064 kWh | $315 |
| July | 5.87 m/s | 1,595 kWh | $243 |
| August | 5.72 m/s | 1,500 kWh | $229 |
| September | 6.54 m/s | 1,946 kWh | $297 |
| October | 6.84 m/s | 2,199 kWh | $336 |
| November | 6.83 m/s | 2,123 kWh | $324 |
| December | 6.46 m/s | 1,960 kWh | $299 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Reno County averages 5.18 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.37 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.219, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 19,927 to 29,645 kWh a year, 49% 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 | 6.03 m/s | 19,927 kWh | 33 years |
| 30 m | 6.59 m/s | 24,069 kWh | 27 years |
| 40 m | 7.02 m/s | 27,175 kWh | 24 years |
| 50 m | 7.37 m/s | 29,645 kWh | 22 years |
Counties around Reno County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Stafford County, averages 6.66 m/s.
- Kingman County, KS: 6.45 m/s, 23,038 kWh, payback 28 years (28 mi)
- Rice County, KS: 6.54 m/s, 23,702 kWh, payback 28 years (28 mi)
- Stafford County, KS: 6.66 m/s, 24,582 kWh, payback 27 years (35 mi)
- Harvey County, KS: 6.53 m/s, 23,628 kWh, payback 28 years (36 mi)
- Sedgwick County, KS: 6.41 m/s, 22,743 kWh, payback 29 years (38 mi)
- McPherson County, KS: 6.49 m/s, 23,333 kWh, payback 28 years (39 mi)
Sun versus wind in Reno County
Reno 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 2,407. 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.