Wind Turbine Payback in Chicot County, AR
Wind turbine payback in Chicot 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 Chicot County, AR averages 4.75 m/s (10.6 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 10,890 kWh a year, worth $1,496 at AR's 13.74¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 67 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Chicot County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Chicot County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.4 m/s at the hub against 4.75 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,332 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,089, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 46¢/kWh, 3.3 times what AR pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.4 m/s instead of 4.75. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of AR
Chicot County is the 1,589th 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 Chicot County
March is the strongest month here, at 5.55 m/s and about 1,391 kWh. July is the weakest, 3.56 m/s and 388 kWh, so the best month makes 3.6 times the worst. November to March brings in 54% of the year's output in Chicot County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.30 m/s | 1,243 kWh | $171 |
| February | 5.44 m/s | 1,199 kWh | $165 |
| March | 5.55 m/s | 1,391 kWh | $191 |
| April | 5.61 m/s | 1,382 kWh | $190 |
| May | 4.77 m/s | 938 kWh | $129 |
| June | 4.05 m/s | 559 kWh | $77 |
| July | 3.56 m/s | 388 kWh | $53 |
| August | 3.62 m/s | 409 kWh | $56 |
| September | 4.19 m/s | 623 kWh | $86 |
| October | 4.65 m/s | 873 kWh | $120 |
| November | 5.10 m/s | 1,089 kWh | $150 |
| December | 5.22 m/s | 1,191 kWh | $164 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Chicot County averages 3.5 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.47 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 7,863 to 15,821 kWh a year, 101% 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 | 4.24 m/s | 7,863 kWh | 93 years |
| 30 m | 4.75 m/s | 10,879 kWh | 67 years |
| 40 m | 5.14 m/s | 13,505 kWh | 54 years |
| 50 m | 5.47 m/s | 15,821 kWh | 46 years |
Counties around Chicot County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Sharkey County, averages 4.92 m/s.
- Washington County, MS: 4.75 m/s, 10,890 kWh, payback 61 years (20 mi)
- Ashley County, AR: 3.7 m/s, 5,164 kWh, payback over 100 years (28 mi)
- Drew County, AR: 3.54 m/s, 4,489 kWh, payback over 100 years (33 mi)
- West Carroll Parish, LA: 4.9 m/s, 11,866 kWh, payback 64 years (34 mi)
- East Carroll Parish, LA: 4.77 m/s, 11,018 kWh, payback 68 years (37 mi)
- Sharkey County, MS: 4.92 m/s, 11,999 kWh, payback 55 years (38 mi)
Sun versus wind in Chicot County
Chicot County gets 4.56 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,332 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,089. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.2 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.