Wind Turbine Payback in Kendall County, IL
Wind turbine payback in Kendall 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 Kendall County, IL averages 5.98 m/s (13.4 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 19,556 kWh a year, worth $3,761 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 Kendall County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Kendall County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 6.8 m/s at the hub against 5.98 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,139 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,956, 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 5.98. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of IL
Kendall County is the 873rd 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 Kendall County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.87 m/s and about 2,143 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.54 m/s and 814 kWh, so the best month makes 2.6 times the worst. November to March brings in 50% of the year's output in Kendall County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.63 m/s | 2,072 kWh | $398 |
| February | 6.59 m/s | 1,846 kWh | $355 |
| March | 6.60 m/s | 2,050 kWh | $394 |
| April | 6.87 m/s | 2,143 kWh | $412 |
| May | 6.06 m/s | 1,714 kWh | $330 |
| June | 5.23 m/s | 1,159 kWh | $223 |
| July | 4.61 m/s | 852 kWh | $164 |
| August | 4.54 m/s | 814 kWh | $157 |
| September | 5.35 m/s | 1,231 kWh | $237 |
| October | 6.28 m/s | 1,849 kWh | $356 |
| November | 6.62 m/s | 1,994 kWh | $383 |
| December | 6.42 m/s | 1,938 kWh | $373 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Kendall County averages 4.66 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.71 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.227, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 15,676 to 24,947 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 | 5.45 m/s | 15,676 kWh | 33 years |
| 30 m | 5.98 m/s | 19,521 kWh | 27 years |
| 40 m | 6.38 m/s | 22,511 kWh | 23 years |
| 50 m | 6.71 m/s | 24,947 kWh | 21 years |
Counties around Kendall County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Kane County, averages 6.12 m/s.
- Grundy County, IL: 5.98 m/s, 19,556 kWh, payback 27 years (20 mi)
- Kane County, IL: 6.12 m/s, 20,594 kWh, payback 25 years (24 mi)
- Will County, IL: 5.98 m/s, 19,556 kWh, payback 27 years (25 mi)
- DuPage County, IL: 6.12 m/s, 20,594 kWh, payback 25 years (25 mi)
- DeKalb County, IL: 6.01 m/s, 19,778 kWh, payback 26 years (27 mi)
- LaSalle County, IL: 5.98 m/s, 19,556 kWh, payback 27 years (29 mi)
Sun versus wind in Kendall County
Kendall County gets 3.9 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,139 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,956. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.7 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.