Wind Turbine Payback in Oregon County, MO
Wind turbine payback in Oregon 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 Oregon County, MO averages 3.38 m/s (7.6 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 3,868 kWh a year, worth $552 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 Oregon County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Oregon County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.2 m/s at the hub against 3.38 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,282 kWh a year here against the turbine's 387, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 129¢/kWh, 9.1 times what MO pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.2 m/s instead of 3.38. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MO
Oregon County is the 2,643rd 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 Oregon County
March is the strongest month here, at 4.00 m/s and about 557 kWh. July is the weakest, 2.55 m/s and 124 kWh, so the best month makes 4.5 times the worst. November to March brings in 57% of the year's output in Oregon County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.85 m/s | 495 kWh | $71 |
| February | 3.96 m/s | 488 kWh | $70 |
| March | 4.00 m/s | 557 kWh | $80 |
| April | 3.99 m/s | 536 kWh | $77 |
| May | 3.35 m/s | 320 kWh | $46 |
| June | 2.84 m/s | 176 kWh | $25 |
| July | 2.55 m/s | 124 kWh | $18 |
| August | 2.59 m/s | 131 kWh | $19 |
| September | 2.90 m/s | 190 kWh | $27 |
| October | 3.35 m/s | 318 kWh | $45 |
| November | 3.58 m/s | 381 kWh | $54 |
| December | 3.62 m/s | 411 kWh | $59 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Oregon County averages 2.06 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.25 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.450, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 2,083 to 7,897 kWh a year, 279% 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 | 2.81 m/s | 2,083 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.38 m/s | 3,857 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 3.84 m/s | 5,819 kWh | over 100 years |
| 50 m | 4.25 m/s | 7,897 kWh | 89 years |
Counties around Oregon County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Ripley County, averages 4.25 m/s.
- Howell County, MO: 3.73 m/s, 5,297 kWh, payback over 100 years (28 mi)
- Ripley County, MO: 4.25 m/s, 7,897 kWh, payback 89 years (29 mi)
- Carter County, MO: 3.28 m/s, 3,506 kWh, payback over 100 years (31 mi)
- Fulton County, AR: 3.46 m/s, 4,172 kWh, payback over 100 years (31 mi)
- Randolph County, AR: 3.38 m/s, 3,868 kWh, payback over 100 years (32 mi)
- Shannon County, MO: 3.28 m/s, 3,506 kWh, payback over 100 years (32 mi)
Sun versus wind in Oregon County
Oregon County gets 4.39 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,282 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 387. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 3.3 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.