Wind Turbine Payback in Pulaski County, IL
Wind turbine payback in Pulaski 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 Pulaski County, IL averages 5.23 m/s (11.7 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 14,116 kWh a year, worth $2,715 at IL's 19.23¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 37 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Pulaski County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Pulaski County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 6.8 m/s at the hub against 5.23 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,241 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,412, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 35¢/kWh, 1.8 times what IL pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 6.8 m/s instead of 5.23. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of IL
Pulaski County is the 1,360th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in IL is Cook County at 6.73 m/s, payback 21 years.
Month by month in Pulaski County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.27 m/s and about 1,784 kWh. July is the weakest, 3.86 m/s and 500 kWh, so the best month makes 3.6 times the worst. November to March brings in 54% of the year's output in Pulaski County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.88 m/s | 1,601 kWh | $308 |
| February | 5.95 m/s | 1,481 kWh | $285 |
| March | 6.12 m/s | 1,750 kWh | $337 |
| April | 6.27 m/s | 1,784 kWh | $343 |
| May | 5.30 m/s | 1,239 kWh | $238 |
| June | 4.41 m/s | 724 kWh | $139 |
| July | 3.86 m/s | 500 kWh | $96 |
| August | 3.92 m/s | 525 kWh | $101 |
| September | 4.38 m/s | 712 kWh | $137 |
| October | 5.25 m/s | 1,213 kWh | $233 |
| November | 5.73 m/s | 1,454 kWh | $280 |
| December | 5.67 m/s | 1,469 kWh | $282 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Pulaski County averages 3.94 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.96 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.257, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 10,632 to 19,408 kWh a year, 83% 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 | 4.71 m/s | 10,632 kWh | 49 years |
| 30 m | 5.23 m/s | 14,093 kWh | 37 years |
| 40 m | 5.63 m/s | 16,964 kWh | 31 years |
| 50 m | 5.96 m/s | 19,408 kWh | 27 years |
Counties around Pulaski County
None of the 6 closest counties is windier than Pulaski County.
- Alexander County, IL: 5.23 m/s, 14,116 kWh, payback 37 years (12 mi)
- Ballard County, KY: 5.03 m/s, 12,737 kWh, payback 55 years (13 mi)
- Union County, IL: 4.69 m/s, 10,508 kWh, payback 50 years (20 mi)
- Johnson County, IL: 4.82 m/s, 11,341 kWh, payback 46 years (22 mi)
- Massac County, IL: 5.03 m/s, 12,737 kWh, payback 41 years (23 mi)
- McCracken County, KY: 5.03 m/s, 12,737 kWh, payback 55 years (25 mi)
Sun versus wind in Pulaski County
Pulaski County gets 4.25 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,241 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,412. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.1 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.