Wind Turbine Payback in Cedar County, MO
Wind turbine payback in Cedar 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 Cedar County, MO averages 5.73 m/s (12.8 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 17,712 kWh a year, worth $2,529 at MO's 14.28¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 40 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Cedar County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Cedar County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.2 m/s at the hub against 5.73 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,267 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,771, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 28¢/kWh, 2.0 times what MO pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.2 m/s instead of 5.73. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MO
Cedar County is the 1,121st 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 Cedar County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.71 m/s and about 2,050 kWh. July is the weakest, 4.45 m/s and 768 kWh, so the best month makes 2.7 times the worst. November to March brings in 50% of the year's output in Cedar County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.17 m/s | 1,781 kWh | $254 |
| February | 6.28 m/s | 1,669 kWh | $238 |
| March | 6.53 m/s | 2,009 kWh | $287 |
| April | 6.71 m/s | 2,050 kWh | $293 |
| May | 5.76 m/s | 1,520 kWh | $217 |
| June | 5.19 m/s | 1,138 kWh | $163 |
| July | 4.45 m/s | 768 kWh | $110 |
| August | 4.52 m/s | 803 kWh | $115 |
| September | 4.95 m/s | 1,004 kWh | $143 |
| October | 5.88 m/s | 1,598 kWh | $228 |
| November | 6.27 m/s | 1,783 kWh | $255 |
| December | 6.09 m/s | 1,731 kWh | $247 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Cedar County averages 4.38 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.49 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.244, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 13,835 to 23,333 kWh a year, 69% 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 | 5.19 m/s | 13,835 kWh | 51 years |
| 30 m | 5.73 m/s | 17,708 kWh | 40 years |
| 40 m | 6.15 m/s | 20,787 kWh | 34 years |
| 50 m | 6.49 m/s | 23,333 kWh | 30 years |
Counties around Cedar County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Barton County, averages 5.91 m/s.
- Dade County, MO: 5.73 m/s, 17,712 kWh, payback 40 years (21 mi)
- St. Clair County, MO: 5.01 m/s, 12,602 kWh, payback 56 years (22 mi)
- Polk County, MO: 4.73 m/s, 10,762 kWh, payback 65 years (26 mi)
- Vernon County, MO: 5.81 m/s, 18,300 kWh, payback 38 years (28 mi)
- Barton County, MO: 5.91 m/s, 19,038 kWh, payback 37 years (31 mi)
- Hickory County, MO: 3.84 m/s, 5,800 kWh, payback over 100 years (32 mi)
Sun versus wind in Cedar County
Cedar County gets 4.34 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,267 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,771. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.4 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.