Wind Turbine Payback in Wayne County, MO
Wind turbine payback in Wayne 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 Wayne County, MO averages 3.4 m/s (7.6 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 3,942 kWh a year, worth $563 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 Wayne County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Wayne County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.2 m/s at the hub against 3.4 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,241 kWh a year here against the turbine's 394, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 127¢/kWh, 8.9 times what MO pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.2 m/s instead of 3.4. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MO
Wayne County is the 2,625th 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 Wayne County
March is the strongest month here, at 4.03 m/s and about 574 kWh. July is the weakest, 2.57 m/s and 128 kWh, so the best month makes 4.5 times the worst. November to March brings in 56% of the year's output in Wayne County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.86 m/s | 501 kWh | $72 |
| February | 3.97 m/s | 494 kWh | $71 |
| March | 4.03 m/s | 574 kWh | $82 |
| April | 4.03 m/s | 555 kWh | $79 |
| May | 3.38 m/s | 327 kWh | $47 |
| June | 2.87 m/s | 183 kWh | $26 |
| July | 2.57 m/s | 128 kWh | $18 |
| August | 2.62 m/s | 137 kWh | $20 |
| September | 2.90 m/s | 190 kWh | $27 |
| October | 3.39 m/s | 332 kWh | $47 |
| November | 3.61 m/s | 391 kWh | $56 |
| December | 3.65 m/s | 419 kWh | $60 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Wayne County averages 2.07 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.28 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.451, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 2,128 to 8,064 kWh a year, 279% 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 | 2.83 m/s | 2,128 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.4 m/s | 3,940 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 3.87 m/s | 5,943 kWh | over 100 years |
| 50 m | 4.28 m/s | 8,064 kWh | 87 years |
Counties around Wayne County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Stoddard County, averages 4.52 m/s.
- Madison County, MO: 3.41 m/s, 3,980 kWh, payback over 100 years (26 mi)
- Butler County, MO: 4.25 m/s, 7,897 kWh, payback 89 years (27 mi)
- Bollinger County, MO: 4.46 m/s, 9,100 kWh, payback 77 years (28 mi)
- Carter County, MO: 3.28 m/s, 3,506 kWh, payback over 100 years (29 mi)
- Stoddard County, MO: 4.52 m/s, 9,459 kWh, payback 74 years (33 mi)
- Reynolds County, MO: 3.39 m/s, 3,905 kWh, payback over 100 years (34 mi)
Sun versus wind in Wayne County
Wayne County gets 4.25 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,241 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 394. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 3.1 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.