Wind Turbine Payback in Ozark County, MO
Wind turbine payback in Ozark 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 Ozark County, MO averages 3.36 m/s (7.5 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 3,794 kWh a year, worth $542 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 Ozark County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Ozark County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.2 m/s at the hub against 3.36 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,279 kWh a year here against the turbine's 379, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 132¢/kWh, 9.2 times what MO pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.2 m/s instead of 3.36. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MO
Ozark County is the 2,665th 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 Ozark County
March is the strongest month here, at 3.93 m/s and about 527 kWh. July is the weakest, 2.57 m/s and 128 kWh, so the best month makes 4.1 times the worst. November to March brings in 55% of the year's output in Ozark County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.77 m/s | 464 kWh | $66 |
| February | 3.89 m/s | 462 kWh | $66 |
| March | 3.93 m/s | 527 kWh | $75 |
| April | 3.94 m/s | 517 kWh | $74 |
| May | 3.36 m/s | 323 kWh | $46 |
| June | 2.90 m/s | 190 kWh | $27 |
| July | 2.57 m/s | 128 kWh | $18 |
| August | 2.62 m/s | 137 kWh | $20 |
| September | 2.92 m/s | 194 kWh | $28 |
| October | 3.33 m/s | 313 kWh | $45 |
| November | 3.57 m/s | 378 kWh | $54 |
| December | 3.57 m/s | 391 kWh | $56 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Ozark County averages 2.05 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.23 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 2,049 to 7,787 kWh a year, 280% 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 | 2.8 m/s | 2,049 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.36 m/s | 3,798 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 3.83 m/s | 5,734 kWh | over 100 years |
| 50 m | 4.23 m/s | 7,787 kWh | 90 years |
Counties around Ozark County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Douglas County, averages 4.03 m/s.
- Douglas County, MO: 4.03 m/s, 6,729 kWh, payback over 100 years (21 mi)
- Baxter County, AR: 3.36 m/s, 3,794 kWh, payback over 100 years (26 mi)
- Marion County, AR: 3.36 m/s, 3,794 kWh, payback over 100 years (29 mi)
- Taney County, MO: 3.76 m/s, 5,432 kWh, payback over 100 years (32 mi)
- Howell County, MO: 3.73 m/s, 5,297 kWh, payback over 100 years (33 mi)
- Fulton County, AR: 3.46 m/s, 4,172 kWh, payback over 100 years (40 mi)
Sun versus wind in Ozark County
Ozark County gets 4.38 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,279 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 379. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 3.4 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.