Wind Turbine Payback in Thomas County, NE
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, NE averages 6.78 m/s (15.2 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 25,457 kWh a year, worth $3,289 at NE's 12.92¢/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 Thomas County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Thomas County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.8 m/s at the hub against 6.78 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,317 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,546, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 20¢/kWh, 1.5 times what NE pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.8 m/s instead of 6.78. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of NE
Thomas County is the 34th 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 Thomas County
January is the strongest month here, at 7.40 m/s and about 2,533 kWh. July is the weakest, 5.69 m/s and 1,479 kWh, so the best month makes 1.7 times the worst. November to March brings in 47% of the year's output in Thomas County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 7.40 m/s | 2,533 kWh | $327 |
| February | 7.11 m/s | 2,134 kWh | $276 |
| March | 7.12 m/s | 2,368 kWh | $306 |
| April | 7.32 m/s | 2,406 kWh | $311 |
| May | 6.72 m/s | 2,127 kWh | $275 |
| June | 6.13 m/s | 1,698 kWh | $219 |
| July | 5.69 m/s | 1,479 kWh | $191 |
| August | 5.72 m/s | 1,501 kWh | $194 |
| September | 6.58 m/s | 1,971 kWh | $255 |
| October | 7.06 m/s | 2,336 kWh | $302 |
| November | 7.20 m/s | 2,339 kWh | $302 |
| December | 7.31 m/s | 2,481 kWh | $321 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Thomas County averages 5.39 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.54 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.209, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 21,379 to 30,807 kWh a year, 44% 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 | 6.23 m/s | 21,379 kWh | 36 years |
| 30 m | 6.78 m/s | 25,431 kWh | 30 years |
| 40 m | 7.2 m/s | 28,436 kWh | 27 years |
| 50 m | 7.54 m/s | 30,807 kWh | 25 years |
Counties around Thomas County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Hooker County, averages 6.82 m/s.
- Logan County, NE: 6.66 m/s, 24,582 kWh, payback 32 years (22 mi)
- Blaine County, NE: 6.73 m/s, 25,093 kWh, payback 31 years (28 mi)
- Hooker County, NE: 6.82 m/s, 25,747 kWh, payback 30 years (31 mi)
- McPherson County, NE: 6.59 m/s, 24,069 kWh, payback 32 years (34 mi)
- Brown County, NE: 6.77 m/s, 25,384 kWh, payback 31 years (46 mi)
- Loup County, NE: 6.72 m/s, 25,020 kWh, payback 31 years (52 mi)
Sun versus wind in Thomas County
Thomas 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 2,546. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.9 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.