Wind Turbine Payback in Chariton County, MO
Wind turbine payback in Chariton 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 Chariton County, MO averages 5.8 m/s (13 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 18,226 kWh a year, worth $2,603 at MO's 14.28¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 38 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Chariton County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Chariton County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.2 m/s at the hub against 5.8 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,218 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,823, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 27¢/kWh, 1.9 times what MO pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.2 m/s instead of 5.8. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MO
Chariton County is the 1,064th 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 Chariton County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.71 m/s and about 2,051 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.54 m/s and 816 kWh, so the best month makes 2.5 times the worst. November to March brings in 49% of the year's output in Chariton County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.25 m/s | 1,832 kWh | $262 |
| February | 6.24 m/s | 1,649 kWh | $235 |
| March | 6.55 m/s | 2,020 kWh | $288 |
| April | 6.71 m/s | 2,051 kWh | $293 |
| May | 5.84 m/s | 1,576 kWh | $225 |
| June | 5.30 m/s | 1,198 kWh | $171 |
| July | 4.57 m/s | 830 kWh | $119 |
| August | 4.54 m/s | 816 kWh | $117 |
| September | 5.20 m/s | 1,142 kWh | $163 |
| October | 6.03 m/s | 1,692 kWh | $242 |
| November | 6.35 m/s | 1,832 kWh | $262 |
| December | 6.10 m/s | 1,737 kWh | $248 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Chariton County averages 4.45 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.56 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.241, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 14,328 to 23,849 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 | 5.26 m/s | 14,328 kWh | 49 years |
| 30 m | 5.8 m/s | 18,227 kWh | 38 years |
| 40 m | 6.22 m/s | 21,310 kWh | 33 years |
| 50 m | 6.56 m/s | 23,849 kWh | 29 years |
Counties around Chariton County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Carroll County, averages 5.89 m/s.
- Linn County, MO: 5.83 m/s, 18,447 kWh, payback 38 years (25 mi)
- Randolph County, MO: 5.81 m/s, 18,300 kWh, payback 38 years (26 mi)
- Carroll County, MO: 5.89 m/s, 18,890 kWh, payback 37 years (29 mi)
- Saline County, MO: 5.74 m/s, 17,785 kWh, payback 39 years (29 mi)
- Howard County, MO: 5.43 m/s, 15,534 kWh, payback 45 years (30 mi)
- Macon County, MO: 5.47 m/s, 15,821 kWh, payback 44 years (30 mi)
Sun versus wind in Chariton County
Chariton County gets 4.17 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,218 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,823. 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.