Wind Turbine Payback in Barton County, MO
Wind turbine payback in Barton 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 Barton County, MO averages 5.91 m/s (13.2 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 19,038 kWh a year, worth $2,719 at MO's 14.28¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 37 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Barton County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Barton County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.2 m/s at the hub against 5.91 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,279 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,904, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 26¢/kWh, 1.8 times what MO pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.2 m/s instead of 5.91. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MO
Barton County is the 978th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in MO is Atchison County at 6.17 m/s, payback 33 years.
Month by month in Barton County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.94 m/s and about 2,185 kWh. July is the weakest, 4.63 m/s and 862 kWh, so the best month makes 2.5 times the worst. November to March brings in 49% of the year's output in Barton County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.28 m/s | 1,851 kWh | $264 |
| February | 6.41 m/s | 1,747 kWh | $249 |
| March | 6.71 m/s | 2,122 kWh | $303 |
| April | 6.94 m/s | 2,185 kWh | $312 |
| May | 5.97 m/s | 1,657 kWh | $237 |
| June | 5.47 m/s | 1,301 kWh | $186 |
| July | 4.63 m/s | 862 kWh | $123 |
| August | 4.69 m/s | 890 kWh | $127 |
| September | 5.16 m/s | 1,121 kWh | $160 |
| October | 6.10 m/s | 1,735 kWh | $248 |
| November | 6.47 m/s | 1,904 kWh | $272 |
| December | 6.22 m/s | 1,812 kWh | $259 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Barton County averages 4.52 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.7 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.245, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 14,982 to 24,874 kWh a year, 66% 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 | 5.35 m/s | 14,982 kWh | 47 years |
| 30 m | 5.91 m/s | 19,051 kWh | 37 years |
| 40 m | 6.34 m/s | 22,251 kWh | 32 years |
| 50 m | 6.7 m/s | 24,874 kWh | 28 years |
Counties around Barton County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Crawford County, averages 5.98 m/s.
- Jasper County, MO: 5.78 m/s, 18,079 kWh, payback 39 years (20 mi)
- Vernon County, MO: 5.81 m/s, 18,300 kWh, payback 38 years (24 mi)
- Dade County, MO: 5.73 m/s, 17,712 kWh, payback 40 years (27 mi)
- Crawford County, KS: 5.98 m/s, 19,556 kWh, payback 34 years (28 mi)
- Cedar County, MO: 5.73 m/s, 17,712 kWh, payback 40 years (31 mi)
- Cherokee County, KS: 5.88 m/s, 18,816 kWh, payback 35 years (36 mi)
Sun versus wind in Barton County
Barton County gets 4.38 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,279 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,904. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.5 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.