Wind Turbine Payback in Jackson County, IL
Wind turbine payback in Jackson 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 Jackson County, IL averages 5.34 m/s (11.9 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 14,892 kWh a year, worth $2,864 at IL's 19.23¢/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 Jackson County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Jackson County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 6.8 m/s at the hub against 5.34 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,241 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,489, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 34¢/kWh, 1.7 times what IL pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 6.8 m/s instead of 5.34. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of IL
Jackson County is the 1,311th 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 Jackson County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.29 m/s and about 1,796 kWh. July is the weakest, 3.99 m/s and 556 kWh, so the best month makes 3.2 times the worst. November to March brings in 54% of the year's output in Jackson County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.06 m/s | 1,713 kWh | $329 |
| February | 6.06 m/s | 1,547 kWh | $297 |
| March | 6.18 m/s | 1,785 kWh | $343 |
| April | 6.29 m/s | 1,796 kWh | $345 |
| May | 5.34 m/s | 1,262 kWh | $243 |
| June | 4.53 m/s | 782 kWh | $150 |
| July | 3.99 m/s | 556 kWh | $107 |
| August | 4.02 m/s | 568 kWh | $109 |
| September | 4.46 m/s | 748 kWh | $144 |
| October | 5.46 m/s | 1,336 kWh | $257 |
| November | 5.91 m/s | 1,567 kWh | $301 |
| December | 5.84 m/s | 1,575 kWh | $303 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Jackson County averages 4.02 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.1 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.259, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 11,285 to 20,446 kWh a year, 81% 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 | 4.81 m/s | 11,285 kWh | 46 years |
| 30 m | 5.34 m/s | 14,920 kWh | 35 years |
| 40 m | 5.76 m/s | 17,913 kWh | 29 years |
| 50 m | 6.1 m/s | 20,446 kWh | 25 years |
Counties around Jackson County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Franklin County, averages 5.51 m/s.
- Perry County, IL: 5.34 m/s, 14,892 kWh, payback 35 years (21 mi)
- Union County, IL: 4.69 m/s, 10,508 kWh, payback 50 years (22 mi)
- Perry County, MO: 4.46 m/s, 9,100 kWh, payback 77 years (24 mi)
- Williamson County, IL: 4.82 m/s, 11,341 kWh, payback 46 years (25 mi)
- Franklin County, IL: 5.51 m/s, 16,109 kWh, payback 32 years (29 mi)
- Randolph County, IL: 4.69 m/s, 10,508 kWh, payback 50 years (30 mi)
Sun versus wind in Jackson County
Jackson County gets 4.25 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,241 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,489. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.2 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.