Wind Turbine Payback in Newton County, MO
Wind turbine payback in Newton 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 Newton County, MO averages 5.78 m/s (12.9 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 18,079 kWh a year, worth $2,582 at MO's 14.28¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 39 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Newton County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Newton County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.2 m/s at the hub against 5.78 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,294 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,808, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 28¢/kWh, 1.9 times what MO pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.2 m/s instead of 5.78. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MO
Newton County is the 1,085th 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 Newton County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.78 m/s and about 2,094 kWh. July is the weakest, 4.52 m/s and 804 kWh, so the best month makes 2.6 times the worst. November to March brings in 50% of the year's output in Newton County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.18 m/s | 1,784 kWh | $255 |
| February | 6.32 m/s | 1,696 kWh | $242 |
| March | 6.57 m/s | 2,032 kWh | $290 |
| April | 6.78 m/s | 2,094 kWh | $299 |
| May | 5.84 m/s | 1,574 kWh | $225 |
| June | 5.29 m/s | 1,193 kWh | $170 |
| July | 4.52 m/s | 804 kWh | $115 |
| August | 4.57 m/s | 831 kWh | $119 |
| September | 5.03 m/s | 1,048 kWh | $150 |
| October | 5.91 m/s | 1,618 kWh | $231 |
| November | 6.32 m/s | 1,817 kWh | $259 |
| December | 6.11 m/s | 1,745 kWh | $249 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Newton County averages 4.39 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.57 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.251, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 14,047 to 23,922 kWh a year, 70% 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 | 5.22 m/s | 14,047 kWh | 50 years |
| 30 m | 5.78 m/s | 18,075 kWh | 39 years |
| 40 m | 6.21 m/s | 21,277 kWh | 33 years |
| 50 m | 6.57 m/s | 23,922 kWh | 29 years |
Counties around Newton County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Ottawa County, averages 5.88 m/s.
- McDonald County, MO: 4.69 m/s, 10,508 kWh, payback 67 years (19 mi)
- Jasper County, MO: 5.78 m/s, 18,079 kWh, payback 39 years (21 mi)
- Ottawa County, OK: 5.88 m/s, 18,816 kWh, payback 39 years (26 mi)
- Lawrence County, MO: 5.5 m/s, 16,037 kWh, payback 44 years (31 mi)
- Barry County, MO: 4.39 m/s, 8,690 kWh, payback 81 years (31 mi)
- Cherokee County, KS: 5.88 m/s, 18,816 kWh, payback 35 years (33 mi)
Sun versus wind in Newton County
Newton County gets 4.43 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,294 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,808. 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.