Wind Turbine Payback in Rice County, KS
Wind turbine payback in Rice 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 Rice County, KS averages 6.54 m/s (14.6 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 23,702 kWh a year, worth $3,617 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 Rice County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Rice County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.8 m/s at the hub against 6.54 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,361 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,370, 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 6.54. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of KS
Rice County is the 158th 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 Rice County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.43 m/s and about 2,472 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.64 m/s and 1,449 kWh, so the best month makes 1.7 times the worst. November to March brings in 42% of the year's output in Rice County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.40 m/s | 1,927 kWh | $294 |
| February | 6.46 m/s | 1,771 kWh | $270 |
| March | 6.99 m/s | 2,288 kWh | $349 |
| April | 7.43 m/s | 2,472 kWh | $377 |
| May | 6.65 m/s | 2,084 kWh | $318 |
| June | 6.73 m/s | 2,060 kWh | $314 |
| July | 5.81 m/s | 1,555 kWh | $237 |
| August | 5.64 m/s | 1,449 kWh | $221 |
| September | 6.56 m/s | 1,957 kWh | $299 |
| October | 6.80 m/s | 2,173 kWh | $332 |
| November | 6.75 m/s | 2,076 kWh | $317 |
| December | 6.40 m/s | 1,927 kWh | $294 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Rice County averages 5.16 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.31 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.216, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 19,685 to 29,229 kWh a year, 48% 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 m/s | 19,685 kWh | 33 years |
| 30 m | 6.55 m/s | 23,748 kWh | 28 years |
| 40 m | 6.97 m/s | 26,800 kWh | 25 years |
| 50 m | 7.31 m/s | 29,229 kWh | 22 years |
Counties around Rice County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Stafford County, averages 6.66 m/s.
- Ellsworth County, KS: 6.54 m/s, 23,702 kWh, payback 28 years (24 mi)
- Reno County, KS: 6.59 m/s, 24,069 kWh, payback 27 years (28 mi)
- McPherson County, KS: 6.49 m/s, 23,333 kWh, payback 28 years (30 mi)
- Barton County, KS: 6.58 m/s, 23,996 kWh, payback 27 years (32 mi)
- Stafford County, KS: 6.66 m/s, 24,582 kWh, payback 27 years (35 mi)
- Saline County, KS: 6.31 m/s, 22,003 kWh, payback 30 years (43 mi)
Sun versus wind in Rice County
Rice County gets 4.66 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,361 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,370. 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.