Wind Turbine Payback in Texas County, MO
Wind turbine payback in Texas 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 Texas County, MO averages 3.5 m/s (7.8 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 4,329 kWh a year, worth $618 at MO's 14.28¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of over 100 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Texas County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Texas County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.2 m/s at the hub against 3.5 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,256 kWh a year here against the turbine's 433, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 116¢/kWh, 8.1 times what MO pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.2 m/s instead of 3.5. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MO
Texas County is the 2,507th 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 Texas County
March is the strongest month here, at 4.10 m/s and about 601 kWh. July is the weakest, 2.68 m/s and 148 kWh, so the best month makes 4.1 times the worst. November to March brings in 56% of the year's output in Texas County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.99 m/s | 556 kWh | $79 |
| February | 4.07 m/s | 533 kWh | $76 |
| March | 4.10 m/s | 601 kWh | $86 |
| April | 4.07 m/s | 568 kWh | $81 |
| May | 3.44 m/s | 346 kWh | $49 |
| June | 3.02 m/s | 219 kWh | $31 |
| July | 2.68 m/s | 148 kWh | $21 |
| August | 2.73 m/s | 158 kWh | $23 |
| September | 3.00 m/s | 213 kWh | $30 |
| October | 3.48 m/s | 359 kWh | $51 |
| November | 3.72 m/s | 433 kWh | $62 |
| December | 3.79 m/s | 471 kWh | $67 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Texas County averages 2.15 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.39 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.444, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 2,378 to 8,690 kWh a year, 265% 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 | 2.92 m/s | 2,378 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.5 m/s | 4,325 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 3.98 m/s | 6,457 kWh | over 100 years |
| 50 m | 4.39 m/s | 8,690 kWh | 81 years |
Counties around Texas County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Wright County, averages 3.81 m/s.
- Wright County, MO: 3.81 m/s, 5,660 kWh, payback over 100 years (29 mi)
- Dent County, MO: 3.39 m/s, 3,905 kWh, payback over 100 years (33 mi)
- Shannon County, MO: 3.28 m/s, 3,506 kWh, payback over 100 years (33 mi)
- Howell County, MO: 3.73 m/s, 5,297 kWh, payback over 100 years (38 mi)
- Pulaski County, MO: 3.55 m/s, 4,530 kWh, payback over 100 years (38 mi)
- Phelps County, MO: 3.41 m/s, 3,980 kWh, payback over 100 years (39 mi)
Sun versus wind in Texas County
Texas County gets 4.3 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,256 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 433. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 2.9 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.