Wind Turbine Payback in Sarpy County, NE
Wind turbine payback in Sarpy 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 Sarpy County, NE averages 6.29 m/s (14.1 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 21,855 kWh a year, worth $2,824 at NE's 12.92¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 35 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Sarpy County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Sarpy County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.8 m/s at the hub against 6.29 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,223 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,186, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 23¢/kWh, 1.8 times what NE pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.8 m/s instead of 6.29. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of NE
Sarpy County is the 482nd 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 Sarpy County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.17 m/s and about 2,322 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.12 m/s and 1,134 kWh, so the best month makes 2.0 times the worst. November to March brings in 45% of the year's output in Sarpy County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.51 m/s | 1,995 kWh | $258 |
| February | 6.54 m/s | 1,817 kWh | $235 |
| March | 6.81 m/s | 2,178 kWh | $281 |
| April | 7.17 m/s | 2,322 kWh | $300 |
| May | 6.48 m/s | 1,978 kWh | $256 |
| June | 5.96 m/s | 1,594 kWh | $206 |
| July | 5.16 m/s | 1,155 kWh | $149 |
| August | 5.12 m/s | 1,134 kWh | $147 |
| September | 6.15 m/s | 1,708 kWh | $221 |
| October | 6.56 m/s | 2,023 kWh | $261 |
| November | 6.66 m/s | 2,022 kWh | $261 |
| December | 6.37 m/s | 1,905 kWh | $246 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Sarpy County averages 4.92 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.05 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.224, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 17,799 to 27,400 kWh a year, 54% 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 | 5.74 m/s | 17,799 kWh | 44 years |
| 30 m | 6.29 m/s | 21,838 kWh | 35 years |
| 40 m | 6.71 m/s | 24,920 kWh | 31 years |
| 50 m | 7.05 m/s | 27,400 kWh | 28 years |
Counties around Sarpy County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Saunders County, averages 6.41 m/s.
- Douglas County, NE: 6.33 m/s, 22,151 kWh, payback 35 years (13 mi)
- Cass County, NE: 6.29 m/s, 21,855 kWh, payback 35 years (14 mi)
- Mills County, IA: 6.23 m/s, 21,410 kWh, payback 32 years (26 mi)
- Saunders County, NE: 6.41 m/s, 22,743 kWh, payback 34 years (29 mi)
- Washington County, NE: 6.33 m/s, 22,151 kWh, payback 35 years (30 mi)
- Otoe County, NE: 6.31 m/s, 22,003 kWh, payback 35 years (33 mi)
Sun versus wind in Sarpy County
Sarpy County gets 4.19 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,223 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,186. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.8 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.