Wind Turbine Payback in Massac County, IL
Wind turbine payback in Massac 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 Massac County, IL averages 5.03 m/s (11.3 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 12,737 kWh a year, worth $2,449 at IL's 19.23¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 41 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Massac County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Massac County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 6.8 m/s at the hub against 5.03 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,229 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,274, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 39¢/kWh, 2.0 times what IL pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 6.8 m/s instead of 5.03. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of IL
Massac County is the 1,441st 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 Massac County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.04 m/s and about 1,644 kWh. July is the weakest, 3.77 m/s and 465 kWh, so the best month makes 3.5 times the worst. November to March brings in 54% of the year's output in Massac County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.70 m/s | 1,486 kWh | $286 |
| February | 5.76 m/s | 1,376 kWh | $265 |
| March | 5.92 m/s | 1,622 kWh | $312 |
| April | 6.04 m/s | 1,644 kWh | $316 |
| May | 5.04 m/s | 1,087 kWh | $209 |
| June | 4.24 m/s | 644 kWh | $124 |
| July | 3.77 m/s | 465 kWh | $89 |
| August | 3.79 m/s | 475 kWh | $91 |
| September | 4.26 m/s | 652 kWh | $125 |
| October | 5.00 m/s | 1,062 kWh | $204 |
| November | 5.46 m/s | 1,292 kWh | $248 |
| December | 5.47 m/s | 1,346 kWh | $259 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Massac County averages 3.73 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.78 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.272, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 9,368 to 18,079 kWh a year, 93% 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 | 4.5 m/s | 9,368 kWh | 56 years |
| 30 m | 5.03 m/s | 12,739 kWh | 41 years |
| 40 m | 5.44 m/s | 15,602 kWh | 33 years |
| 50 m | 5.78 m/s | 18,079 kWh | 29 years |
Counties around Massac County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Pulaski County, averages 5.23 m/s.
- McCracken County, KY: 5.03 m/s, 12,737 kWh, payback 55 years (11 mi)
- Pope County, IL: 4.82 m/s, 11,341 kWh, payback 46 years (17 mi)
- Livingston County, KY: 4.94 m/s, 12,132 kWh, payback 58 years (19 mi)
- Johnson County, IL: 4.82 m/s, 11,341 kWh, payback 46 years (19 mi)
- Ballard County, KY: 5.03 m/s, 12,737 kWh, payback 55 years (20 mi)
- Pulaski County, IL: 5.23 m/s, 14,116 kWh, payback 37 years (23 mi)
Sun versus wind in Massac County
Massac County gets 4.21 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,229 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,274. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.0 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.