Wind Turbine Payback in Worth County, MO
Wind turbine payback in Worth 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 Worth County, MO averages 6.06 m/s (13.6 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 20,149 kWh a year, worth $2,877 at MO's 14.28¢/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 Worth County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Worth County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.2 m/s at the hub against 6.06 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,226 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,015, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 25¢/kWh, 1.7 times what MO pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.2 m/s instead of 6.06. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MO
Worth County is the 747th 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 Worth County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.94 m/s and about 2,188 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.79 m/s and 947 kWh, so the best month makes 2.3 times the worst. November to March brings in 48% of the year's output in Worth County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.43 m/s | 1,941 kWh | $277 |
| February | 6.45 m/s | 1,768 kWh | $252 |
| March | 6.75 m/s | 2,146 kWh | $306 |
| April | 6.94 m/s | 2,188 kWh | $312 |
| May | 6.13 m/s | 1,757 kWh | $251 |
| June | 5.57 m/s | 1,361 kWh | $194 |
| July | 4.86 m/s | 986 kWh | $141 |
| August | 4.79 m/s | 947 kWh | $135 |
| September | 5.71 m/s | 1,441 kWh | $206 |
| October | 6.33 m/s | 1,880 kWh | $268 |
| November | 6.52 m/s | 1,938 kWh | $277 |
| December | 6.27 m/s | 1,846 kWh | $264 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Worth County averages 4.7 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.82 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.231, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 16,174 to 25,747 kWh a year, 59% 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 | 5.52 m/s | 16,174 kWh | 43 years |
| 30 m | 6.06 m/s | 20,156 kWh | 35 years |
| 40 m | 6.48 m/s | 23,240 kWh | 30 years |
| 50 m | 6.82 m/s | 25,747 kWh | 27 years |
Counties around Worth County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Taylor County, averages 6.1 m/s.
- Gentry County, MO: 5.99 m/s, 19,630 kWh, payback 36 years (19 mi)
- Ringgold County, IA: 6.06 m/s, 20,149 kWh, payback 34 years (20 mi)
- Taylor County, IA: 6.1 m/s, 20,446 kWh, payback 34 years (23 mi)
- Harrison County, MO: 6.05 m/s, 20,075 kWh, payback 35 years (24 mi)
- Nodaway County, MO: 6.1 m/s, 20,446 kWh, payback 34 years (26 mi)
- Decatur County, IA: 6.05 m/s, 20,075 kWh, payback 34 years (38 mi)
Sun versus wind in Worth County
Worth County gets 4.2 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,226 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,015. 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.