Wind Turbine Payback in Hickory County, MO
Wind turbine payback in Hickory 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 Hickory County, MO averages 3.84 m/s (8.6 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 5,800 kWh a year, worth $828 at MO's 14.28¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of over 100 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Hickory County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Hickory County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.2 m/s at the hub against 3.84 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,267 kWh a year here against the turbine's 580, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 86¢/kWh, 6.0 times what MO pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.2 m/s instead of 3.84. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MO
Hickory County is the 2,186th 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 Hickory County
March is the strongest month here, at 4.48 m/s and about 783 kWh. July is the weakest, 3.00 m/s and 222 kWh, so the best month makes 3.5 times the worst. November to March brings in 54% of the year's output in Hickory County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.28 m/s | 687 kWh | $98 |
| February | 4.40 m/s | 670 kWh | $96 |
| March | 4.48 m/s | 783 kWh | $112 |
| April | 4.43 m/s | 734 kWh | $105 |
| May | 3.77 m/s | 463 kWh | $66 |
| June | 3.41 m/s | 327 kWh | $47 |
| July | 3.00 m/s | 222 kWh | $32 |
| August | 3.06 m/s | 236 kWh | $34 |
| September | 3.32 m/s | 300 kWh | $43 |
| October | 3.84 m/s | 492 kWh | $70 |
| November | 4.08 m/s | 575 kWh | $82 |
| December | 4.07 m/s | 590 kWh | $84 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Hickory County averages 2.45 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.73 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.409, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 3,407 to 10,762 kWh a year, 216% 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 | 3.25 m/s | 3,407 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.84 m/s | 5,792 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 4.32 m/s | 8,275 kWh | 85 years |
| 50 m | 4.73 m/s | 10,762 kWh | 65 years |
Counties around Hickory County
5 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Cedar County, averages 5.73 m/s.
- Polk County, MO: 4.73 m/s, 10,762 kWh, payback 65 years (23 mi)
- Dallas County, MO: 4.73 m/s, 10,762 kWh, payback 65 years (24 mi)
- Benton County, MO: 4.81 m/s, 11,276 kWh, payback 62 years (25 mi)
- St. Clair County, MO: 5.01 m/s, 12,602 kWh, payback 56 years (26 mi)
- Camden County, MO: 3.55 m/s, 4,530 kWh, payback over 100 years (31 mi)
- Cedar County, MO: 5.73 m/s, 17,712 kWh, payback 40 years (32 mi)
Sun versus wind in Hickory County
Hickory 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 580. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 2.2 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.