Wind Turbine Payback in Scotland County, MO
Wind turbine payback in Scotland 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 Scotland County, MO averages 5.84 m/s (13.1 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 18,521 kWh a year, worth $2,645 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 Scotland County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Scotland County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.2 m/s at the hub against 5.84 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,194 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,852, 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 5.84. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MO
Scotland County is the 1,040th 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 Scotland County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.73 m/s and about 2,061 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.53 m/s and 808 kWh, so the best month makes 2.6 times the worst. November to March brings in 50% of the year's output in Scotland County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.39 m/s | 1,920 kWh | $274 |
| February | 6.36 m/s | 1,714 kWh | $245 |
| March | 6.53 m/s | 2,009 kWh | $287 |
| April | 6.73 m/s | 2,061 kWh | $294 |
| May | 5.84 m/s | 1,574 kWh | $225 |
| June | 5.25 m/s | 1,170 kWh | $167 |
| July | 4.57 m/s | 827 kWh | $118 |
| August | 4.53 m/s | 808 kWh | $115 |
| September | 5.26 m/s | 1,176 kWh | $168 |
| October | 6.09 m/s | 1,730 kWh | $247 |
| November | 6.40 m/s | 1,863 kWh | $266 |
| December | 6.16 m/s | 1,775 kWh | $253 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Scotland County averages 4.51 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.59 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.236, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 14,668 to 24,069 kWh a year, 64% 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 | 5.31 m/s | 14,668 kWh | 48 years |
| 30 m | 5.84 m/s | 18,533 kWh | 38 years |
| 40 m | 6.25 m/s | 21,573 kWh | 33 years |
| 50 m | 6.59 m/s | 24,069 kWh | 29 years |
Counties around Scotland County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Van Buren County, averages 5.97 m/s.
- Schuyler County, MO: 5.42 m/s, 15,462 kWh, payback 45 years (20 mi)
- Knox County, MO: 5.77 m/s, 18,006 kWh, payback 39 years (21 mi)
- Clark County, MO: 5.84 m/s, 18,521 kWh, payback 38 years (22 mi)
- Van Buren County, IA: 5.97 m/s, 19,482 kWh, payback 35 years (23 mi)
- Davis County, IA: 5.42 m/s, 15,462 kWh, payback 45 years (25 mi)
- Adair County, MO: 5.47 m/s, 15,821 kWh, payback 44 years (30 mi)
Sun versus wind in Scotland County
Scotland County gets 4.09 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,194 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,852. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.6 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.