Wind Turbine Payback in Monroe County, MO
Wind turbine payback in Monroe 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 Monroe County, MO averages 5.71 m/s (12.8 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 17,565 kWh a year, worth $2,508 at MO's 14.28¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 40 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Monroe County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Monroe County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.2 m/s at the hub against 5.71 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,218 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,757, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 28¢/kWh, 2.0 times what MO pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.2 m/s instead of 5.71. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MO
Monroe County is the 1,125th 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 Monroe County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.59 m/s and about 1,979 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.42 m/s and 754 kWh, so the best month makes 2.6 times the worst. November to March brings in 51% of the year's output in Monroe County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.30 m/s | 1,861 kWh | $266 |
| February | 6.25 m/s | 1,656 kWh | $236 |
| March | 6.44 m/s | 1,950 kWh | $278 |
| April | 6.59 m/s | 1,979 kWh | $283 |
| May | 5.68 m/s | 1,473 kWh | $210 |
| June | 5.10 m/s | 1,084 kWh | $155 |
| July | 4.46 m/s | 772 kWh | $110 |
| August | 4.42 m/s | 754 kWh | $108 |
| September | 5.02 m/s | 1,039 kWh | $148 |
| October | 5.94 m/s | 1,633 kWh | $233 |
| November | 6.31 m/s | 1,807 kWh | $258 |
| December | 6.14 m/s | 1,761 kWh | $251 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Monroe County averages 4.39 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.46 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.240, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 13,800 to 23,112 kWh a year, 67% 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 | 5.18 m/s | 13,800 kWh | 51 years |
| 30 m | 5.71 m/s | 17,599 kWh | 40 years |
| 40 m | 6.12 m/s | 20,617 kWh | 34 years |
| 50 m | 6.46 m/s | 23,112 kWh | 30 years |
Counties around Monroe County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Randolph County, averages 5.81 m/s.
- Shelby County, MO: 5.77 m/s, 18,006 kWh, payback 39 years (21 mi)
- Audrain County, MO: 4.55 m/s, 9,641 kWh, payback 73 years (21 mi)
- Ralls County, MO: 5.62 m/s, 16,907 kWh, payback 41 years (26 mi)
- Randolph County, MO: 5.81 m/s, 18,300 kWh, payback 38 years (26 mi)
- Marion County, MO: 5.77 m/s, 18,006 kWh, payback 39 years (29 mi)
- Macon County, MO: 5.47 m/s, 15,821 kWh, payback 44 years (37 mi)
Sun versus wind in Monroe County
Monroe County gets 4.17 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,218 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,757. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.4 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.