Wind Turbine Payback in Thomas County, KS
Wind turbine payback in Thomas 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 Thomas County, KS averages 6.38 m/s (14.3 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 22,521 kWh a year, worth $3,437 at KS's 15.26¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 29 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Thomas County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Thomas County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.8 m/s at the hub against 6.38 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,402 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,252, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 22¢/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 6.38. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of KS
Thomas County is the 359th 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 Thomas County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.05 m/s and about 2,250 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.71 m/s and 1,494 kWh, so the best month makes 1.5 times the worst. November to March brings in 43% of the year's output in Thomas County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.37 m/s | 1,904 kWh | $291 |
| February | 6.41 m/s | 1,745 kWh | $266 |
| March | 6.67 m/s | 2,094 kWh | $320 |
| April | 7.05 m/s | 2,250 kWh | $343 |
| May | 6.46 m/s | 1,960 kWh | $299 |
| June | 6.26 m/s | 1,777 kWh | $271 |
| July | 5.77 m/s | 1,528 kWh | $233 |
| August | 5.71 m/s | 1,494 kWh | $228 |
| September | 6.45 m/s | 1,892 kWh | $289 |
| October | 6.56 m/s | 2,027 kWh | $309 |
| November | 6.53 m/s | 1,940 kWh | $296 |
| December | 6.36 m/s | 1,899 kWh | $290 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Thomas County averages 5.02 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.14 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.219, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 18,535 to 28,038 kWh a year, 51% 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 | 5.84 m/s | 18,535 kWh | 35 years |
| 30 m | 6.38 m/s | 22,553 kWh | 29 years |
| 40 m | 6.8 m/s | 25,598 kWh | 26 years |
| 50 m | 7.14 m/s | 28,038 kWh | 23 years |
Counties around Thomas County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Sheridan County, averages 6.44 m/s.
- Rawlins County, KS: 6.24 m/s, 21,484 kWh, payback 31 years (30 mi)
- Logan County, KS: 6.36 m/s, 22,373 kWh, payback 29 years (31 mi)
- Sherman County, KS: 6.28 m/s, 21,781 kWh, payback 30 years (34 mi)
- Sheridan County, KS: 6.44 m/s, 22,964 kWh, payback 29 years (34 mi)
- Gove County, KS: 6.42 m/s, 22,817 kWh, payback 29 years (44 mi)
- Decatur County, KS: 6.29 m/s, 21,855 kWh, payback 30 years (44 mi)
Sun versus wind in Thomas County
Thomas 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 2,252. 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.