Wind Turbine Payback in Sherman County, KS
Wind turbine payback in Sherman 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 Sherman County, KS averages 6.28 m/s (14 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 21,781 kWh a year, worth $3,324 at KS's 15.26¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 30 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Sherman County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Sherman County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.8 m/s at the hub against 6.28 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,402 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,178, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 23¢/kWh, 1.5 times what KS pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.8 m/s instead of 6.28. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of KS
Sherman County is the 498th 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 Sherman County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.93 m/s and about 2,179 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.62 m/s and 1,437 kWh, so the best month makes 1.5 times the worst. November to March brings in 43% of the year's output in Sherman County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.33 m/s | 1,880 kWh | $287 |
| February | 6.35 m/s | 1,713 kWh | $261 |
| March | 6.60 m/s | 2,053 kWh | $313 |
| April | 6.93 m/s | 2,179 kWh | $333 |
| May | 6.35 m/s | 1,891 kWh | $289 |
| June | 6.09 m/s | 1,672 kWh | $255 |
| July | 5.63 m/s | 1,442 kWh | $220 |
| August | 5.62 m/s | 1,437 kWh | $219 |
| September | 6.25 m/s | 1,770 kWh | $270 |
| October | 6.44 m/s | 1,953 kWh | $298 |
| November | 6.47 m/s | 1,906 kWh | $291 |
| December | 6.32 m/s | 1,874 kWh | $286 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Sherman County averages 4.93 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.02 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.220, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 17,773 to 27,186 kWh a year, 53% 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 | 17,773 kWh | 37 years |
| 30 m | 6.27 m/s | 21,735 kWh | 30 years |
| 40 m | 6.68 m/s | 24,755 kWh | 27 years |
| 50 m | 7.02 m/s | 27,186 kWh | 24 years |
Counties around Sherman County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Thomas County, averages 6.38 m/s.
- Wallace County, KS: 6.3 m/s, 21,929 kWh, payback 30 years (29 mi)
- Cheyenne County, KS: 6.15 m/s, 20,816 kWh, payback 32 years (30 mi)
- Thomas County, KS: 6.38 m/s, 22,521 kWh, payback 29 years (34 mi)
- Logan County, KS: 6.36 m/s, 22,373 kWh, payback 29 years (43 mi)
- Rawlins County, KS: 6.24 m/s, 21,484 kWh, payback 31 years (46 mi)
- Kit Carson County, CO: 6.18 m/s, 21,039 kWh, payback 28 years (47 mi)
Sun versus wind in Sherman County
Sherman County gets 4.8 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,402 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,178. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.6 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.