Wind Turbine Payback in Hancock County, IL
Wind turbine payback in Hancock 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 Hancock County, IL averages 5.96 m/s (13.3 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 19,408 kWh a year, worth $3,732 at IL's 19.23¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 27 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Hancock County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Hancock County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 6.8 m/s at the hub against 5.96 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,191 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,941, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 26¢/kWh, 1.3 times what IL pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 6.8 m/s instead of 5.96. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of IL
Hancock County is the 901st windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in IL is Cook County at 6.73 m/s, payback 21 years.
Month by month in Hancock County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.88 m/s and about 2,152 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.63 m/s and 860 kWh, so the best month makes 2.5 times the worst. November to March brings in 50% of the year's output in Hancock County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.50 m/s | 1,986 kWh | $382 |
| February | 6.46 m/s | 1,774 kWh | $341 |
| March | 6.67 m/s | 2,092 kWh | $402 |
| April | 6.88 m/s | 2,152 kWh | $414 |
| May | 5.99 m/s | 1,667 kWh | $321 |
| June | 5.36 m/s | 1,235 kWh | $237 |
| July | 4.66 m/s | 874 kWh | $168 |
| August | 4.63 m/s | 860 kWh | $165 |
| September | 5.33 m/s | 1,219 kWh | $234 |
| October | 6.24 m/s | 1,824 kWh | $351 |
| November | 6.56 m/s | 1,960 kWh | $377 |
| December | 6.31 m/s | 1,869 kWh | $359 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Hancock County averages 4.64 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.7 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.228, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 15,582 to 24,874 kWh a year, 60% 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 | 5.44 m/s | 15,582 kWh | 33 years |
| 30 m | 5.96 m/s | 19,433 kWh | 27 years |
| 40 m | 6.37 m/s | 22,430 kWh | 23 years |
| 50 m | 6.7 m/s | 24,874 kWh | 21 years |
Counties around Hancock County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Henderson County, averages 6 m/s.
- Lee County, IA: 5.96 m/s, 19,408 kWh, payback 35 years (23 mi)
- McDonough County, IL: 5.94 m/s, 19,260 kWh, payback 27 years (26 mi)
- Adams County, IL: 5.85 m/s, 18,595 kWh, payback 28 years (29 mi)
- Clark County, MO: 5.84 m/s, 18,521 kWh, payback 38 years (30 mi)
- Henderson County, IL: 6 m/s, 19,704 kWh, payback 26 years (31 mi)
- Schuyler County, IL: 5.85 m/s, 18,595 kWh, payback 28 years (34 mi)
Sun versus wind in Hancock County
Hancock County gets 4.08 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,191 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,941. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.6 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.