Wind Turbine Payback in Atchison County, MO
Wind turbine payback in Atchison 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 Atchison County, MO averages 6.17 m/s (13.8 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 20,965 kWh a year, worth $2,994 at MO's 14.28¢/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 Atchison County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Atchison County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.2 m/s at the hub against 6.17 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,244 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,097, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 24¢/kWh, 1.7 times what MO pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.2 m/s instead of 6.17. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MO
Atchison County is the 608th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. It is the windiest county in MO.
Month by month in Atchison County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.07 m/s and about 2,266 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.91 m/s and 1,013 kWh, so the best month makes 2.2 times the worst. November to March brings in 46% of the year's output in Atchison County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.43 m/s | 1,946 kWh | $278 |
| February | 6.43 m/s | 1,758 kWh | $251 |
| March | 6.79 m/s | 2,168 kWh | $310 |
| April | 7.07 m/s | 2,266 kWh | $324 |
| May | 6.32 m/s | 1,873 kWh | $267 |
| June | 5.81 m/s | 1,504 kWh | $215 |
| July | 5.01 m/s | 1,069 kWh | $153 |
| August | 4.91 m/s | 1,013 kWh | $145 |
| September | 5.91 m/s | 1,563 kWh | $223 |
| October | 6.42 m/s | 1,940 kWh | $277 |
| November | 6.61 m/s | 1,991 kWh | $284 |
| December | 6.31 m/s | 1,868 kWh | $267 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Atchison County averages 4.81 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.92 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.226, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 16,948 to 26,469 kWh a year, 56% 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 | 5.63 m/s | 16,948 kWh | 41 years |
| 30 m | 6.17 m/s | 20,931 kWh | 34 years |
| 40 m | 6.58 m/s | 23,993 kWh | 29 years |
| 50 m | 6.92 m/s | 26,469 kWh | 27 years |
Counties around Atchison County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Richardson County, averages 6.2 m/s.
- Nemaha County, NE: 6.17 m/s, 20,965 kWh, payback 37 years (22 mi)
- Fremont County, IA: 6.17 m/s, 20,965 kWh, payback 33 years (23 mi)
- Holt County, MO: 6.07 m/s, 20,223 kWh, payback 35 years (26 mi)
- Richardson County, NE: 6.2 m/s, 21,187 kWh, payback 37 years (26 mi)
- Page County, IA: 6.1 m/s, 20,446 kWh, payback 34 years (26 mi)
- Nodaway County, MO: 6.1 m/s, 20,446 kWh, payback 34 years (30 mi)
Sun versus wind in Atchison County
Atchison County gets 4.26 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,244 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,097. 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.