Wind Turbine Payback in Saline County, MO
Wind turbine payback in Saline 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 Saline County, MO averages 5.74 m/s (12.8 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 17,785 kWh a year, worth $2,540 at MO's 14.28¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 39 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Saline County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Saline County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.2 m/s at the hub against 5.74 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,226 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,779, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 28¢/kWh, 2.0 times what MO pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.2 m/s instead of 5.74. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MO
Saline County is the 1,116th 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 Saline County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.63 m/s and about 2,004 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.52 m/s and 801 kWh, so the best month makes 2.5 times the worst. November to March brings in 50% of the year's output in Saline County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.24 m/s | 1,822 kWh | $260 |
| February | 6.20 m/s | 1,625 kWh | $232 |
| March | 6.50 m/s | 1,988 kWh | $284 |
| April | 6.63 m/s | 2,004 kWh | $286 |
| May | 5.73 m/s | 1,506 kWh | $215 |
| June | 5.23 m/s | 1,160 kWh | $166 |
| July | 4.52 m/s | 801 kWh | $114 |
| August | 4.52 m/s | 801 kWh | $114 |
| September | 5.07 m/s | 1,070 kWh | $153 |
| October | 5.95 m/s | 1,644 kWh | $235 |
| November | 6.29 m/s | 1,795 kWh | $256 |
| December | 6.10 m/s | 1,738 kWh | $248 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Saline County averages 4.38 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.51 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.246, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 13,880 to 23,481 kWh a year, 69% 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 | 5.2 m/s | 13,880 kWh | 51 years |
| 30 m | 5.74 m/s | 17,794 kWh | 39 years |
| 40 m | 6.16 m/s | 20,908 kWh | 34 years |
| 50 m | 6.51 m/s | 23,481 kWh | 30 years |
Counties around Saline County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Carroll County, averages 5.89 m/s.
- Carroll County, MO: 5.89 m/s, 18,890 kWh, payback 37 years (26 mi)
- Howard County, MO: 5.43 m/s, 15,534 kWh, payback 45 years (27 mi)
- Pettis County, MO: 4.81 m/s, 11,276 kWh, payback 62 years (29 mi)
- Cooper County, MO: 5.43 m/s, 15,534 kWh, payback 45 years (29 mi)
- Chariton County, MO: 5.8 m/s, 18,226 kWh, payback 38 years (29 mi)
- Lafayette County, MO: 5.86 m/s, 18,669 kWh, payback 38 years (32 mi)
Sun versus wind in Saline County
Saline County gets 4.2 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,226 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,779. 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.