Wind Turbine Payback in Sioux County, NE
Wind turbine payback in Sioux 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 Sioux County, NE averages 6.51 m/s (14.6 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 23,481 kWh a year, worth $3,034 at NE's 12.92¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 33 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Sioux County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Sioux County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.8 m/s at the hub against 6.51 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,317 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,348, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 21¢/kWh, 1.6 times what NE pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.8 m/s instead of 6.51. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of NE
Sioux County is the 193rd 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 Sioux County
January is the strongest month here, at 7.47 m/s and about 2,578 kWh. July is the weakest, 5.38 m/s and 1,292 kWh, so the best month makes 2.0 times the worst. November to March brings in 50% of the year's output in Sioux County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 7.47 m/s | 2,578 kWh | $333 |
| February | 7.10 m/s | 2,127 kWh | $275 |
| March | 6.92 m/s | 2,246 kWh | $290 |
| April | 6.78 m/s | 2,094 kWh | $271 |
| May | 6.15 m/s | 1,766 kWh | $228 |
| June | 5.80 m/s | 1,496 kWh | $193 |
| July | 5.38 m/s | 1,292 kWh | $167 |
| August | 5.48 m/s | 1,352 kWh | $175 |
| September | 5.94 m/s | 1,583 kWh | $205 |
| October | 6.66 m/s | 2,086 kWh | $270 |
| November | 7.11 m/s | 2,289 kWh | $296 |
| December | 7.38 m/s | 2,525 kWh | $326 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Sioux County averages 5.14 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.27 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 19,482 to 28,951 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 | 5.97 m/s | 19,482 kWh | 40 years |
| 30 m | 6.51 m/s | 23,509 kWh | 33 years |
| 40 m | 6.93 m/s | 26,537 kWh | 29 years |
| 50 m | 7.27 m/s | 28,951 kWh | 27 years |
Counties around Sioux County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Dawes County, averages 6.59 m/s.
- Dawes County, NE: 6.59 m/s, 24,069 kWh, payback 32 years (35 mi)
- Box Butte County, NE: 6.38 m/s, 22,521 kWh, payback 34 years (38 mi)
- Goshen County, WY: 6.38 m/s, 22,521 kWh, payback 32 years (41 mi)
- Scotts Bluff County, NE: 6.25 m/s, 21,558 kWh, payback 36 years (43 mi)
- Fall River County, SD: 6.21 m/s, 21,262 kWh, payback 32 years (53 mi)
- Niobrara County, WY: 6.56 m/s, 23,849 kWh, payback 30 years (55 mi)
Sun versus wind in Sioux County
Sioux County gets 4.51 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,317 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,348. 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.