Wind Turbine Payback in Nodaway County, MO
Wind turbine payback in Nodaway 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 Nodaway County, MO averages 6.1 m/s (13.6 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 20,446 kWh a year, worth $2,920 at MO's 14.28¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 34 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Nodaway County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Nodaway County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.2 m/s at the hub against 6.1 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,226 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,045, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 24¢/kWh, 1.7 times what MO pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.2 m/s instead of 6.1. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MO
Nodaway County is the 685th 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 Nodaway County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.02 m/s and about 2,236 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.85 m/s and 980 kWh, so the best month makes 2.3 times the worst. November to March brings in 47% of the year's output in Nodaway County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.40 m/s | 1,925 kWh | $275 |
| February | 6.43 m/s | 1,754 kWh | $250 |
| March | 6.78 m/s | 2,163 kWh | $309 |
| April | 7.02 m/s | 2,236 kWh | $319 |
| May | 6.24 m/s | 1,824 kWh | $260 |
| June | 5.69 m/s | 1,430 kWh | $204 |
| July | 4.90 m/s | 1,010 kWh | $144 |
| August | 4.85 m/s | 980 kWh | $140 |
| September | 5.81 m/s | 1,505 kWh | $215 |
| October | 6.37 m/s | 1,908 kWh | $272 |
| November | 6.56 m/s | 1,960 kWh | $280 |
| December | 6.28 m/s | 1,852 kWh | $264 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Nodaway County averages 4.75 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.86 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.228, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 16,519 to 26,036 kWh a year, 58% 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 | 5.57 m/s | 16,519 kWh | 42 years |
| 30 m | 6.11 m/s | 20,489 kWh | 34 years |
| 40 m | 6.52 m/s | 23,552 kWh | 30 years |
| 50 m | 6.86 m/s | 26,036 kWh | 27 years |
Counties around Nodaway County
None of the 6 closest counties is windier than Nodaway County.
- Holt County, MO: 6.07 m/s, 20,223 kWh, payback 35 years (26 mi)
- Worth County, MO: 6.06 m/s, 20,149 kWh, payback 35 years (26 mi)
- Andrew County, MO: 6.07 m/s, 20,223 kWh, payback 35 years (26 mi)
- Gentry County, MO: 5.99 m/s, 19,630 kWh, payback 36 years (27 mi)
- Taylor County, IA: 6.1 m/s, 20,446 kWh, payback 34 years (28 mi)
- Page County, IA: 6.1 m/s, 20,446 kWh, payback 34 years (29 mi)
Sun versus wind in Nodaway County
Nodaway County gets 4.2 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,226 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,045. 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.