Wind Turbine Payback in Randolph County, MO
Wind turbine payback in Randolph 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 Randolph County, MO averages 5.81 m/s (13 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 18,300 kWh a year, worth $2,613 at MO's 14.28¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 38 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Randolph County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Randolph County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.2 m/s at the hub against 5.81 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,218 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,830, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 27¢/kWh, 1.9 times what MO pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.2 m/s instead of 5.81. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MO
Randolph County is the 1,061st 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 Randolph County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.71 m/s and about 2,049 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.56 m/s and 824 kWh, so the best month makes 2.5 times the worst. November to March brings in 50% of the year's output in Randolph County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.30 m/s | 1,863 kWh | $266 |
| February | 6.28 m/s | 1,673 kWh | $239 |
| March | 6.54 m/s | 2,013 kWh | $287 |
| April | 6.71 m/s | 2,049 kWh | $293 |
| May | 5.81 m/s | 1,552 kWh | $222 |
| June | 5.23 m/s | 1,161 kWh | $166 |
| July | 4.57 m/s | 829 kWh | $118 |
| August | 4.56 m/s | 824 kWh | $118 |
| September | 5.18 m/s | 1,131 kWh | $162 |
| October | 6.03 m/s | 1,690 kWh | $241 |
| November | 6.37 m/s | 1,846 kWh | $264 |
| December | 6.15 m/s | 1,768 kWh | $252 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Randolph County averages 4.45 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.57 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.242, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 14,350 to 23,922 kWh a year, 67% 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 | 5.26 m/s | 14,350 kWh | 49 years |
| 30 m | 5.81 m/s | 18,271 kWh | 38 years |
| 40 m | 6.22 m/s | 21,370 kWh | 33 years |
| 50 m | 6.57 m/s | 23,922 kWh | 29 years |
Counties around Randolph County
None of the 6 closest counties is windier than Randolph County.
- Howard County, MO: 5.43 m/s, 15,534 kWh, payback 45 years (23 mi)
- Chariton County, MO: 5.8 m/s, 18,226 kWh, payback 38 years (26 mi)
- Monroe County, MO: 5.71 m/s, 17,565 kWh, payback 40 years (26 mi)
- Macon County, MO: 5.47 m/s, 15,821 kWh, payback 44 years (27 mi)
- Boone County, MO: 5.43 m/s, 15,534 kWh, payback 45 years (33 mi)
- Shelby County, MO: 5.77 m/s, 18,006 kWh, payback 39 years (33 mi)
Sun versus wind in Randolph County
Randolph County gets 4.17 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,218 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,830. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.5 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.