Wind Turbine Payback in Miller County, MO
Wind turbine payback in Miller 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 Miller County, MO averages 3.55 m/s (7.9 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 4,530 kWh a year, worth $647 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 Miller County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Miller County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.2 m/s at the hub against 3.55 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,238 kWh a year here against the turbine's 453, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 110¢/kWh, 7.7 times what MO pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.2 m/s instead of 3.55. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MO
Miller County is the 2,459th 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 Miller County
March is the strongest month here, at 4.13 m/s and about 615 kWh. July is the weakest, 2.79 m/s and 171 kWh, so the best month makes 3.6 times the worst. November to March brings in 55% of the year's output in Miller County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.99 m/s | 556 kWh | $79 |
| February | 4.09 m/s | 540 kWh | $77 |
| March | 4.13 m/s | 615 kWh | $88 |
| April | 4.08 m/s | 575 kWh | $82 |
| May | 3.46 m/s | 353 kWh | $50 |
| June | 3.11 m/s | 242 kWh | $35 |
| July | 2.79 m/s | 171 kWh | $24 |
| August | 2.83 m/s | 179 kWh | $26 |
| September | 3.07 m/s | 230 kWh | $33 |
| October | 3.55 m/s | 383 kWh | $55 |
| November | 3.78 m/s | 453 kWh | $65 |
| December | 3.79 m/s | 474 kWh | $68 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Miller County averages 2.2 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.44 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.436, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 2,535 to 8,982 kWh a year, 254% 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 | 2.98 m/s | 2,535 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.55 m/s | 4,544 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 4.03 m/s | 6,721 kWh | over 100 years |
| 50 m | 4.44 m/s | 8,982 kWh | 78 years |
Counties around Miller County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Morgan County, averages 4.81 m/s.
- Cole County, MO: 4.55 m/s, 9,641 kWh, payback 73 years (21 mi)
- Camden County, MO: 3.55 m/s, 4,530 kWh, payback over 100 years (22 mi)
- Maries County, MO: 3.41 m/s, 3,980 kWh, payback over 100 years (28 mi)
- Morgan County, MO: 4.81 m/s, 11,276 kWh, payback 62 years (28 mi)
- Pulaski County, MO: 3.55 m/s, 4,530 kWh, payback over 100 years (30 mi)
- Moniteau County, MO: 4.55 m/s, 9,641 kWh, payback 73 years (30 mi)
Sun versus wind in Miller County
Miller County gets 4.24 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,238 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 453. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 2.7 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.