Wind Turbine Payback in Howell County, MO
Wind turbine payback in Howell 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 Howell County, MO averages 3.73 m/s (8.3 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 5,297 kWh a year, worth $756 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 Howell County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Howell County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.2 m/s at the hub against 3.73 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,282 kWh a year here against the turbine's 530, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 94¢/kWh, 6.6 times what MO pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.2 m/s instead of 3.73. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MO
Howell County is the 2,261st 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 Howell County
March is the strongest month here, at 4.37 m/s and about 727 kWh. July is the weakest, 2.82 m/s and 178 kWh, so the best month makes 4.1 times the worst. November to March brings in 56% of the year's output in Howell County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.24 m/s | 668 kWh | $95 |
| February | 4.33 m/s | 642 kWh | $92 |
| March | 4.37 m/s | 727 kWh | $104 |
| April | 4.36 m/s | 700 kWh | $100 |
| May | 3.71 m/s | 443 kWh | $63 |
| June | 3.20 m/s | 267 kWh | $38 |
| July | 2.82 m/s | 178 kWh | $25 |
| August | 2.86 m/s | 187 kWh | $27 |
| September | 3.18 m/s | 260 kWh | $37 |
| October | 3.71 m/s | 443 kWh | $63 |
| November | 3.96 m/s | 523 kWh | $75 |
| December | 4.01 m/s | 561 kWh | $80 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Howell County averages 2.43 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.55 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.390, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 3,174 to 9,641 kWh a year, 204% 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 | 3.18 m/s | 3,174 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.73 m/s | 5,289 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 4.17 m/s | 7,465 kWh | 94 years |
| 50 m | 4.55 m/s | 9,641 kWh | 73 years |
Counties around Howell County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Douglas County, averages 4.03 m/s.
- Fulton County, AR: 3.46 m/s, 4,172 kWh, payback over 100 years (27 mi)
- Oregon County, MO: 3.38 m/s, 3,868 kWh, payback over 100 years (28 mi)
- Ozark County, MO: 3.36 m/s, 3,794 kWh, payback over 100 years (33 mi)
- Douglas County, MO: 4.03 m/s, 6,729 kWh, payback over 100 years (37 mi)
- Texas County, MO: 3.5 m/s, 4,329 kWh, payback over 100 years (38 mi)
- Shannon County, MO: 3.28 m/s, 3,506 kWh, payback over 100 years (38 mi)
Sun versus wind in Howell County
Howell County gets 4.39 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,282 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 530. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 2.4 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.