Wind Turbine Payback in Holt County, MO
Wind turbine payback in Holt 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 Holt County, MO averages 6.07 m/s (13.6 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 20,223 kWh a year, worth $2,888 at MO's 14.28¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 35 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Holt County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Holt County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.2 m/s at the hub against 6.07 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,244 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,022, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 25¢/kWh, 1.7 times what MO pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.2 m/s instead of 6.07. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MO
Holt County is the 717th 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 Holt County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.99 m/s and about 2,219 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.80 m/s and 952 kWh, so the best month makes 2.3 times the worst. November to March brings in 47% of the year's output in Holt County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.38 m/s | 1,913 kWh | $273 |
| February | 6.39 m/s | 1,733 kWh | $247 |
| March | 6.76 m/s | 2,152 kWh | $307 |
| April | 6.99 m/s | 2,219 kWh | $317 |
| May | 6.15 m/s | 1,768 kWh | $252 |
| June | 5.71 m/s | 1,441 kWh | $206 |
| July | 4.88 m/s | 996 kWh | $142 |
| August | 4.80 m/s | 952 kWh | $136 |
| September | 5.70 m/s | 1,436 kWh | $205 |
| October | 6.32 m/s | 1,874 kWh | $268 |
| November | 6.54 m/s | 1,949 kWh | $278 |
| December | 6.27 m/s | 1,841 kWh | $263 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Holt County averages 4.71 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.83 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.231, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 16,233 to 25,819 kWh a year, 59% 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 | 5.53 m/s | 16,233 kWh | 43 years |
| 30 m | 6.07 m/s | 20,221 kWh | 35 years |
| 40 m | 6.49 m/s | 23,310 kWh | 30 years |
| 50 m | 6.83 m/s | 25,819 kWh | 27 years |
Counties around Holt County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Brown County, averages 6.2 m/s.
- Doniphan County, KS: 6.07 m/s, 20,223 kWh, payback 32 years (22 mi)
- Andrew County, MO: 6.07 m/s, 20,223 kWh, payback 35 years (23 mi)
- Nodaway County, MO: 6.1 m/s, 20,446 kWh, payback 34 years (26 mi)
- Atchison County, MO: 6.17 m/s, 20,965 kWh, payback 33 years (26 mi)
- Brown County, KS: 6.2 m/s, 21,187 kWh, payback 31 years (26 mi)
- Richardson County, NE: 6.2 m/s, 21,187 kWh, payback 37 years (26 mi)
Sun versus wind in Holt County
Holt County gets 4.26 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,244 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,022. 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.