Wind Turbine Payback in Wapello County, IA
Wind turbine payback in Wapello 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 Wapello County, IA averages 5.96 m/s (13.3 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 19,408 kWh a year, worth $2,824 at IA's 14.55¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 35 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Wapello County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Wapello County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.1 m/s at the hub against 5.96 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,188 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,941, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 26¢/kWh, 1.8 times what IA pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.1 m/s instead of 5.96. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of IA
Wapello County is the 901st windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in IA is Dickinson County at 6.59 m/s, payback 29 years.
Month by month in Wapello County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.85 m/s and about 2,134 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.66 m/s and 876 kWh, so the best month makes 2.4 times the worst. November to March brings in 49% of the year's output in Wapello County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.48 m/s | 1,974 kWh | $287 |
| February | 6.44 m/s | 1,763 kWh | $257 |
| March | 6.62 m/s | 2,063 kWh | $300 |
| April | 6.85 m/s | 2,134 kWh | $310 |
| May | 6.03 m/s | 1,695 kWh | $247 |
| June | 5.38 m/s | 1,246 kWh | $181 |
| July | 4.71 m/s | 904 kWh | $132 |
| August | 4.66 m/s | 876 kWh | $127 |
| September | 5.48 m/s | 1,308 kWh | $190 |
| October | 6.23 m/s | 1,818 kWh | $265 |
| November | 6.50 m/s | 1,926 kWh | $280 |
| December | 6.26 m/s | 1,835 kWh | $267 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Wapello County averages 4.61 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.72 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.234, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 15,484 to 25,020 kWh a year, 62% 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 | 5.42 m/s | 15,484 kWh | 44 years |
| 30 m | 5.96 m/s | 19,429 kWh | 35 years |
| 40 m | 6.38 m/s | 22,507 kWh | 31 years |
| 50 m | 6.72 m/s | 25,020 kWh | 28 years |
Counties around Wapello County
5 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Monroe County, averages 6.1 m/s.
- Davis County, IA: 5.42 m/s, 15,462 kWh, payback 45 years (20 mi)
- Jefferson County, IA: 5.97 m/s, 19,482 kWh, payback 35 years (23 mi)
- Mahaska County, IA: 6.07 m/s, 20,223 kWh, payback 34 years (24 mi)
- Monroe County, IA: 6.1 m/s, 20,446 kWh, payback 34 years (24 mi)
- Keokuk County, IA: 6.03 m/s, 19,926 kWh, payback 35 years (24 mi)
- Van Buren County, IA: 5.97 m/s, 19,482 kWh, payback 35 years (31 mi)
Sun versus wind in Wapello County
Wapello County gets 4.07 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,188 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,941. 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.