Wind Turbine Payback in Cole County, MO
Wind turbine payback in Cole 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 Cole County, MO averages 4.55 m/s (10.2 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 9,641 kWh a year, worth $1,377 at MO's 14.28¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 73 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Cole County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Cole County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.2 m/s at the hub against 4.55 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,238 kWh a year here against the turbine's 964, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 52¢/kWh, 3.6 times what MO pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.2 m/s instead of 4.55. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MO
Cole County is the 1,719th 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 Cole County
March is the strongest month here, at 5.24 m/s and about 1,207 kWh. July is the weakest, 3.55 m/s and 385 kWh, so the best month makes 3.1 times the worst. November to March brings in 53% of the year's output in Cole County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.10 m/s | 1,121 kWh | $160 |
| February | 5.14 m/s | 1,035 kWh | $148 |
| March | 5.24 m/s | 1,207 kWh | $172 |
| April | 5.26 m/s | 1,178 kWh | $168 |
| May | 4.47 m/s | 780 kWh | $111 |
| June | 4.01 m/s | 545 kWh | $78 |
| July | 3.55 m/s | 385 kWh | $55 |
| August | 3.59 m/s | 399 kWh | $57 |
| September | 3.90 m/s | 500 kWh | $71 |
| October | 4.60 m/s | 846 kWh | $121 |
| November | 4.88 m/s | 966 kWh | $138 |
| December | 4.88 m/s | 999 kWh | $143 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Cole County averages 3.25 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.32 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.306, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 6,674 to 14,750 kWh a year, 121% 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 | 4.02 m/s | 6,674 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 4.55 m/s | 9,642 kWh | 73 years |
| 40 m | 4.97 m/s | 12,325 kWh | 57 years |
| 50 m | 5.32 m/s | 14,750 kWh | 48 years |
Counties around Cole County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Morgan County, averages 4.81 m/s.
- Moniteau County, MO: 4.55 m/s, 9,641 kWh, payback 73 years (19 mi)
- Miller County, MO: 3.55 m/s, 4,530 kWh, payback over 100 years (21 mi)
- Osage County, MO: 3.65 m/s, 4,948 kWh, payback over 100 years (23 mi)
- Callaway County, MO: 4.55 m/s, 9,641 kWh, payback 73 years (30 mi)
- Maries County, MO: 3.41 m/s, 3,980 kWh, payback over 100 years (30 mi)
- Morgan County, MO: 4.81 m/s, 11,276 kWh, payback 62 years (33 mi)
Sun versus wind in Cole County
Cole County gets 4.24 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,238 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 964. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.3 times as much here as the turbine. 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.