Wind Turbine Payback in Osage County, MO
Wind turbine payback in Osage 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 Osage County, MO averages 3.65 m/s (8.2 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 4,948 kWh a year, worth $707 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 Osage County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Osage County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.2 m/s at the hub against 3.65 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,235 kWh a year here against the turbine's 495, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 101¢/kWh, 7.1 times what MO pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.2 m/s instead of 3.65. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MO
Osage County is the 2,332nd 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 Osage County
March is the strongest month here, at 4.24 m/s and about 665 kWh. July is the weakest, 2.86 m/s and 188 kWh, so the best month makes 3.5 times the worst. November to March brings in 55% of the year's output in Osage County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.12 m/s | 609 kWh | $87 |
| February | 4.19 m/s | 580 kWh | $83 |
| March | 4.24 m/s | 665 kWh | $95 |
| April | 4.20 m/s | 629 kWh | $90 |
| May | 3.56 m/s | 387 kWh | $55 |
| June | 3.19 m/s | 262 kWh | $37 |
| July | 2.86 m/s | 188 kWh | $27 |
| August | 2.88 m/s | 192 kWh | $27 |
| September | 3.15 m/s | 253 kWh | $36 |
| October | 3.66 m/s | 425 kWh | $61 |
| November | 3.89 m/s | 496 kWh | $71 |
| December | 3.91 m/s | 519 kWh | $74 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Osage County averages 2.31 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.51 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.416, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 2,846 to 9,399 kWh a year, 230% 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 | 3.08 m/s | 2,846 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.65 m/s | 4,933 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 4.11 m/s | 7,144 kWh | 98 years |
| 50 m | 4.51 m/s | 9,399 kWh | 75 years |
Counties around Osage County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Cole County, averages 4.55 m/s.
- Gasconade County, MO: 3.63 m/s, 4,862 kWh, payback over 100 years (19 mi)
- Maries County, MO: 3.41 m/s, 3,980 kWh, payback over 100 years (21 mi)
- Cole County, MO: 4.55 m/s, 9,641 kWh, payback 73 years (23 mi)
- Callaway County, MO: 4.55 m/s, 9,641 kWh, payback 73 years (26 mi)
- Miller County, MO: 3.55 m/s, 4,530 kWh, payback over 100 years (35 mi)
- Montgomery County, MO: 4.55 m/s, 9,641 kWh, payback 73 years (39 mi)
Sun versus wind in Osage County
Osage County gets 4.23 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,235 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 495. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 2.5 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.