Wind Turbine Payback in Arkansas County, AR
Wind turbine payback in Arkansas 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 Arkansas County, AR averages 4.94 m/s (11.1 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 12,132 kWh a year, worth $1,667 at AR's 13.74¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 60 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Arkansas County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Arkansas County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.4 m/s at the hub against 4.94 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,323 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,213, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 41¢/kWh, 3.0 times what AR pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.4 m/s instead of 4.94. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of AR
Arkansas County is the 1,482nd windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in AR is Mississippi County at 5.35 m/s, payback 49 years.
Month by month in Arkansas County
March is the strongest month here, at 5.81 m/s and about 1,555 kWh. July is the weakest, 3.58 m/s and 396 kWh, so the best month makes 3.9 times the worst. November to March brings in 55% of the year's output in Arkansas County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.60 m/s | 1,425 kWh | $196 |
| February | 5.71 m/s | 1,345 kWh | $185 |
| March | 5.81 m/s | 1,555 kWh | $214 |
| April | 5.84 m/s | 1,520 kWh | $209 |
| May | 4.98 m/s | 1,056 kWh | $145 |
| June | 4.11 m/s | 585 kWh | $80 |
| July | 3.58 m/s | 396 kWh | $54 |
| August | 3.70 m/s | 437 kWh | $60 |
| September | 4.26 m/s | 655 kWh | $90 |
| October | 4.84 m/s | 977 kWh | $134 |
| November | 5.40 m/s | 1,260 kWh | $173 |
| December | 5.46 m/s | 1,339 kWh | $184 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Arkansas County averages 3.66 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.68 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.273, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 8,882 to 17,345 kWh a year, 95% 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 | 4.42 m/s | 8,882 kWh | 82 years |
| 30 m | 4.94 m/s | 12,136 kWh | 60 years |
| 40 m | 5.34 m/s | 14,922 kWh | 49 years |
| 50 m | 5.68 m/s | 17,345 kWh | 42 years |
Counties around Arkansas County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Prairie County, averages 5.12 m/s.
- Monroe County, AR: 4.94 m/s, 12,132 kWh, payback 60 years (29 mi)
- Lincoln County, AR: 4.04 m/s, 6,780 kWh, payback over 100 years (31 mi)
- Phillips County, AR: 5.08 m/s, 13,078 kWh, payback 56 years (31 mi)
- Jefferson County, AR: 4.65 m/s, 10,257 kWh, payback 71 years (32 mi)
- Desha County, AR: 4.82 m/s, 11,341 kWh, payback 64 years (33 mi)
- Prairie County, AR: 5.12 m/s, 13,353 kWh, payback 55 years (39 mi)
Sun versus wind in Arkansas County
Arkansas County gets 4.53 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,323 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,213. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.1 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.