Wind Turbine Payback in Rush County, KS
Wind turbine payback in Rush 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 Rush County, KS averages 6.56 m/s (14.7 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 23,849 kWh a year, worth $3,639 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 Rush County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Rush County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.8 m/s at the hub against 6.56 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,390 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,385, 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 6.56. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of KS
Rush County is the 139th 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 Rush County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.37 m/s and about 2,434 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.79 m/s and 1,541 kWh, so the best month makes 1.6 times the worst. November to March brings in 41% of the year's output in Rush County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.28 m/s | 1,850 kWh | $282 |
| February | 6.43 m/s | 1,758 kWh | $268 |
| March | 6.93 m/s | 2,252 kWh | $344 |
| April | 7.37 m/s | 2,434 kWh | $371 |
| May | 6.66 m/s | 2,086 kWh | $318 |
| June | 6.80 m/s | 2,105 kWh | $321 |
| July | 5.94 m/s | 1,636 kWh | $250 |
| August | 5.79 m/s | 1,541 kWh | $235 |
| September | 6.73 m/s | 2,062 kWh | $315 |
| October | 6.76 m/s | 2,147 kWh | $328 |
| November | 6.66 m/s | 2,019 kWh | $308 |
| December | 6.36 m/s | 1,901 kWh | $290 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Rush County averages 5.18 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.32 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.215, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 19,786 to 29,299 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 | 6.01 m/s | 19,786 kWh | 33 years |
| 30 m | 6.56 m/s | 23,839 kWh | 28 years |
| 40 m | 6.98 m/s | 26,879 kWh | 24 years |
| 50 m | 7.32 m/s | 29,299 kWh | 22 years |
Counties around Rush County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Pawnee County, averages 6.68 m/s.
- Pawnee County, KS: 6.68 m/s, 24,728 kWh, payback 27 years (24 mi)
- Ellis County, KS: 6.46 m/s, 23,112 kWh, payback 28 years (27 mi)
- Barton County, KS: 6.58 m/s, 23,996 kWh, payback 27 years (29 mi)
- Ness County, KS: 6.5 m/s, 23,407 kWh, payback 28 years (33 mi)
- Russell County, KS: 6.43 m/s, 22,891 kWh, payback 29 years (40 mi)
- Trego County, KS: 6.45 m/s, 23,038 kWh, payback 28 years (41 mi)
Sun versus wind in Rush County
Rush County gets 4.76 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,390 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,385. 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.