Wind Turbine Payback in Vernon County, MO
Wind turbine payback in Vernon 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 Vernon 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 Vernon County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Vernon 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 1,279 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
Vernon 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 Vernon County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.82 m/s and about 2,113 kWh. July is the weakest, 4.55 m/s and 817 kWh, so the best month makes 2.6 times the worst. November to March brings in 49% of the year's output in Vernon County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.21 m/s | 1,803 kWh | $257 |
| February | 6.28 m/s | 1,669 kWh | $238 |
| March | 6.61 m/s | 2,058 kWh | $294 |
| April | 6.82 m/s | 2,113 kWh | $302 |
| May | 5.84 m/s | 1,570 kWh | $224 |
| June | 5.39 m/s | 1,250 kWh | $179 |
| July | 4.55 m/s | 817 kWh | $117 |
| August | 4.57 m/s | 831 kWh | $119 |
| September | 5.08 m/s | 1,073 kWh | $153 |
| October | 6.01 m/s | 1,681 kWh | $240 |
| November | 6.35 m/s | 1,831 kWh | $261 |
| December | 6.11 m/s | 1,742 kWh | $249 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Vernon County averages 4.44 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.58 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.244, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 14,339 to 23,996 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 | 14,339 kWh | 49 years |
| 30 m | 5.81 m/s | 18,292 kWh | 38 years |
| 40 m | 6.23 m/s | 21,420 kWh | 33 years |
| 50 m | 6.58 m/s | 23,996 kWh | 29 years |
Counties around Vernon County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Bourbon County, averages 6.03 m/s.
- Barton County, MO: 5.91 m/s, 19,038 kWh, payback 37 years (24 mi)
- Bourbon County, KS: 6.03 m/s, 19,926 kWh, payback 33 years (28 mi)
- Cedar County, MO: 5.73 m/s, 17,712 kWh, payback 40 years (28 mi)
- Bates County, MO: 5.9 m/s, 18,964 kWh, payback 37 years (28 mi)
- St. Clair County, MO: 5.01 m/s, 12,602 kWh, payback 56 years (34 mi)
- Crawford County, KS: 5.98 m/s, 19,556 kWh, payback 34 years (37 mi)
Sun versus wind in Vernon County
Vernon County gets 4.38 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,279 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 1.4 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.