Wind Turbine Payback in Chickasaw County, MS
Wind turbine payback in Chickasaw 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 Chickasaw County, MS averages 4.39 m/s (9.8 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 8,690 kWh a year, worth $1,309 at MS's 15.06¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 76 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Chickasaw County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Chickasaw County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.9 m/s at the hub against 4.39 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,323 kWh a year here against the turbine's 869, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 58¢/kWh, 3.8 times what MS pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.9 m/s instead of 4.39. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MS
Chickasaw County is the 1,825th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in MS is DeSoto County at 5.13 m/s, payback 50 years.
Month by month in Chickasaw County
March is the strongest month here, at 5.19 m/s and about 1,176 kWh. July is the weakest, 3.17 m/s and 266 kWh, so the best month makes 4.4 times the worst. November to March brings in 57% of the year's output in Chickasaw County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.03 m/s | 1,085 kWh | $163 |
| February | 5.16 m/s | 1,048 kWh | $158 |
| March | 5.19 m/s | 1,176 kWh | $177 |
| April | 5.18 m/s | 1,133 kWh | $171 |
| May | 4.29 m/s | 689 kWh | $104 |
| June | 3.57 m/s | 378 kWh | $57 |
| July | 3.17 m/s | 266 kWh | $40 |
| August | 3.23 m/s | 283 kWh | $43 |
| September | 3.92 m/s | 510 kWh | $77 |
| October | 4.36 m/s | 722 kWh | $109 |
| November | 4.76 m/s | 899 kWh | $135 |
| December | 4.88 m/s | 996 kWh | $150 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Chickasaw County averages 3.24 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.06 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.277, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 6,210 to 12,941 kWh a year, 108% 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 | 3.93 m/s | 6,210 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 4.39 m/s | 8,704 kWh | 76 years |
| 40 m | 4.76 m/s | 10,933 kWh | 61 years |
| 50 m | 5.06 m/s | 12,941 kWh | 51 years |
Counties around Chickasaw County
None of the 6 closest counties is windier than Chickasaw County.
- Pontotoc County, MS: 4.39 m/s, 8,690 kWh, payback 76 years (21 mi)
- Clay County, MS: 4.02 m/s, 6,678 kWh, payback 99 years (21 mi)
- Calhoun County, MS: 3.79 m/s, 5,568 kWh, payback over 100 years (22 mi)
- Monroe County, MS: 4.39 m/s, 8,690 kWh, payback 76 years (27 mi)
- Lee County, MS: 4.09 m/s, 7,038 kWh, payback 94 years (29 mi)
- Webster County, MS: 3.36 m/s, 3,794 kWh, payback over 100 years (29 mi)
Sun versus wind in Chickasaw County
Chickasaw 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 869. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.5 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.