Wind Turbine Payback in Webster County, NE
Wind turbine payback in Webster 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 Webster County, NE averages 6.38 m/s (14.3 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 22,521 kWh a year, worth $2,910 at NE's 12.92¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 34 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Webster County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Webster County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.8 m/s at the hub against 6.38 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,299 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, 1.7 times what NE pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.8 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 NE
Webster County is the 359th 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 Webster County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.25 m/s and about 2,370 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.42 m/s and 1,314 kWh, so the best month makes 1.8 times the worst. November to March brings in 43% of the year's output in Webster County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.29 m/s | 1,855 kWh | $240 |
| February | 6.42 m/s | 1,752 kWh | $226 |
| March | 6.84 m/s | 2,200 kWh | $284 |
| April | 7.25 m/s | 2,370 kWh | $306 |
| May | 6.57 m/s | 2,029 kWh | $262 |
| June | 6.32 m/s | 1,812 kWh | $234 |
| July | 5.55 m/s | 1,391 kWh | $180 |
| August | 5.42 m/s | 1,314 kWh | $170 |
| September | 6.45 m/s | 1,893 kWh | $245 |
| October | 6.63 m/s | 2,068 kWh | $267 |
| November | 6.55 m/s | 1,953 kWh | $252 |
| December | 6.27 m/s | 1,844 kWh | $238 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Webster County averages 5 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.14 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.221, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 18,456 to 28,038 kWh a year, 52% 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 | 5.83 m/s | 18,456 kWh | 42 years |
| 30 m | 6.38 m/s | 22,505 kWh | 34 years |
| 40 m | 6.8 m/s | 25,576 kWh | 30 years |
| 50 m | 7.14 m/s | 28,038 kWh | 28 years |
Counties around Webster County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Adams County, averages 6.56 m/s.
- Adams County, NE: 6.56 m/s, 23,849 kWh, payback 33 years (23 mi)
- Nuckolls County, NE: 6.4 m/s, 22,669 kWh, payback 34 years (24 mi)
- Franklin County, NE: 6.38 m/s, 22,521 kWh, payback 34 years (24 mi)
- Smith County, KS: 6.38 m/s, 22,521 kWh, payback 29 years (31 mi)
- Jewell County, KS: 6.4 m/s, 22,669 kWh, payback 29 years (31 mi)
- Kearney County, NE: 6.56 m/s, 23,849 kWh, payback 33 years (33 mi)
Sun versus wind in Webster County
Webster County gets 4.45 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,299 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 1.7 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.