Wind Turbine Payback in Boone County, AR
Wind turbine payback in Boone 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 Boone County, AR averages 3.76 m/s (8.4 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 5,432 kWh a year, worth $746 at AR's 13.74¢/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 Boone County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Boone County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.4 m/s at the hub against 3.76 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,285 kWh a year here against the turbine's 543, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 92¢/kWh, 6.7 times what AR pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.4 m/s instead of 3.76. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of AR
Boone County is the 2,236th 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 Boone County
March is the strongest month here, at 4.36 m/s and about 724 kWh. July is the weakest, 2.87 m/s and 189 kWh, so the best month makes 3.8 times the worst. November to March brings in 55% of the year's output in Boone County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.25 m/s | 669 kWh | $92 |
| February | 4.34 m/s | 647 kWh | $89 |
| March | 4.36 m/s | 724 kWh | $99 |
| April | 4.41 m/s | 724 kWh | $99 |
| May | 3.75 m/s | 456 kWh | $63 |
| June | 3.27 m/s | 286 kWh | $39 |
| July | 2.87 m/s | 189 kWh | $26 |
| August | 2.93 m/s | 203 kWh | $28 |
| September | 3.21 m/s | 269 kWh | $37 |
| October | 3.71 m/s | 441 kWh | $61 |
| November | 4.01 m/s | 544 kWh | $75 |
| December | 4.03 m/s | 569 kWh | $78 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Boone County averages 2.45 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.58 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.389, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 3,254 to 9,824 kWh a year, 202% 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 | 3.21 m/s | 3,254 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.75 m/s | 5,408 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 4.2 m/s | 7,619 kWh | 96 years |
| 50 m | 4.58 m/s | 9,824 kWh | 74 years |
Counties around Boone County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Carroll County, averages 4.39 m/s.
- Marion County, AR: 3.36 m/s, 3,794 kWh, payback over 100 years (22 mi)
- Taney County, MO: 3.76 m/s, 5,432 kWh, payback over 100 years (24 mi)
- Carroll County, AR: 4.39 m/s, 8,690 kWh, payback 84 years (26 mi)
- Newton County, AR: 3.49 m/s, 4,289 kWh, payback over 100 years (28 mi)
- Searcy County, AR: 3.35 m/s, 3,757 kWh, payback over 100 years (35 mi)
- Stone County, MO: 4.39 m/s, 8,690 kWh, payback 81 years (37 mi)
Sun versus wind in Boone County
Boone County gets 4.4 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,285 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 543. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 2.4 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.