Wind Turbine Payback in Cooper County, MO
Wind turbine payback in Cooper 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 Cooper County, MO averages 5.43 m/s (12.1 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 15,534 kWh a year, worth $2,218 at MO's 14.28¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 45 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Cooper County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Cooper County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.2 m/s at the hub against 5.43 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,238 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,553, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 32¢/kWh, 2.3 times what MO pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.2 m/s instead of 5.43. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MO
Cooper County is the 1,252nd 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 Cooper County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.27 m/s and about 1,786 kWh. July is the weakest, 4.28 m/s and 686 kWh, so the best month makes 2.6 times the worst. November to March brings in 51% of the year's output in Cooper County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.95 m/s | 1,641 kWh | $234 |
| February | 5.93 m/s | 1,473 kWh | $210 |
| March | 6.15 m/s | 1,768 kWh | $252 |
| April | 6.27 m/s | 1,786 kWh | $255 |
| May | 5.39 m/s | 1,293 kWh | $185 |
| June | 4.88 m/s | 964 kWh | $138 |
| July | 4.28 m/s | 686 kWh | $98 |
| August | 4.30 m/s | 694 kWh | $99 |
| September | 4.76 m/s | 903 kWh | $129 |
| October | 5.61 m/s | 1,428 kWh | $204 |
| November | 5.92 m/s | 1,572 kWh | $224 |
| December | 5.80 m/s | 1,548 kWh | $221 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Cooper County averages 4.1 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.19 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.256, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 11,838 to 21,113 kWh a year, 78% 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 | 4.9 m/s | 11,838 kWh | 59 years |
| 30 m | 5.43 m/s | 15,542 kWh | 45 years |
| 40 m | 5.85 m/s | 18,568 kWh | 38 years |
| 50 m | 6.19 m/s | 21,113 kWh | 33 years |
Counties around Cooper County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Saline County, averages 5.74 m/s.
- Moniteau County, MO: 4.55 m/s, 9,641 kWh, payback 73 years (19 mi)
- Howard County, MO: 5.43 m/s, 15,534 kWh, payback 45 years (21 mi)
- Pettis County, MO: 4.81 m/s, 11,276 kWh, payback 62 years (27 mi)
- Boone County, MO: 5.43 m/s, 15,534 kWh, payback 45 years (29 mi)
- Saline County, MO: 5.74 m/s, 17,785 kWh, payback 39 years (29 mi)
- Morgan County, MO: 4.81 m/s, 11,276 kWh, payback 62 years (30 mi)
Sun versus wind in Cooper County
Cooper 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 1,553. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.3 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.