Wind Turbine Payback in Stone County, MO
Wind turbine payback in Stone 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 Stone County, MO averages 4.39 m/s (9.8 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 8,690 kWh a year, worth $1,241 at MO's 14.28¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 81 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Stone County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Stone County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.2 m/s at the hub against 4.39 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,285 kWh a year here against the turbine's 869, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 58¢/kWh, 4.0 times what MO pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.2 m/s instead of 4.39. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MO
Stone County is the 1,825th 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 Stone County
April is the strongest month here, at 5.14 m/s and about 1,111 kWh. July is the weakest, 3.37 m/s and 326 kWh, so the best month makes 3.4 times the worst. November to March brings in 54% of the year's output in Stone County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.88 m/s | 998 kWh | $143 |
| February | 4.97 m/s | 948 kWh | $135 |
| March | 5.05 m/s | 1,094 kWh | $156 |
| April | 5.14 m/s | 1,111 kWh | $159 |
| May | 4.39 m/s | 739 kWh | $106 |
| June | 3.89 m/s | 495 kWh | $71 |
| July | 3.37 m/s | 326 kWh | $47 |
| August | 3.42 m/s | 342 kWh | $49 |
| September | 3.76 m/s | 447 kWh | $64 |
| October | 4.36 m/s | 723 kWh | $103 |
| November | 4.72 m/s | 880 kWh | $126 |
| December | 4.70 m/s | 900 kWh | $129 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Stone County averages 3.04 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.2 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.334, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 5,749 to 13,907 kWh a year, 142% 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 | 3.83 m/s | 5,749 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 4.38 m/s | 8,658 kWh | 81 years |
| 40 m | 4.83 m/s | 11,384 kWh | 62 years |
| 50 m | 5.2 m/s | 13,907 kWh | 50 years |
Counties around Stone County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Lawrence County, averages 5.5 m/s.
- Barry County, MO: 4.39 m/s, 8,690 kWh, payback 81 years (21 mi)
- Christian County, MO: 4.56 m/s, 9,702 kWh, payback 72 years (22 mi)
- Taney County, MO: 3.76 m/s, 5,432 kWh, payback over 100 years (24 mi)
- Carroll County, AR: 4.39 m/s, 8,690 kWh, payback 84 years (29 mi)
- Lawrence County, MO: 5.5 m/s, 16,037 kWh, payback 44 years (32 mi)
- Greene County, MO: 4.73 m/s, 10,762 kWh, payback 65 years (36 mi)
Sun versus wind in Stone County
Stone County gets 4.4 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,285 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 869. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.5 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.