Wind Turbine Payback in Crawford County, AR
Wind turbine payback in Crawford 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 Crawford County, AR averages 4.28 m/s (9.6 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 8,064 kWh a year, worth $1,108 at AR's 13.74¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 90 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Crawford County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Crawford County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.4 m/s at the hub against 4.28 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,296 kWh a year here against the turbine's 806, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 62¢/kWh, 4.5 times what AR pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.4 m/s instead of 4.28. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of AR
Crawford County is the 1,903rd 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 Crawford County
April is the strongest month here, at 5.08 m/s and about 1,075 kWh. July is the weakest, 3.25 m/s and 290 kWh, so the best month makes 3.7 times the worst. November to March brings in 52% of the year's output in Crawford County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.63 m/s | 862 kWh | $118 |
| February | 4.80 m/s | 858 kWh | $118 |
| March | 5.01 m/s | 1,071 kWh | $147 |
| April | 5.08 m/s | 1,075 kWh | $148 |
| May | 4.37 m/s | 730 kWh | $100 |
| June | 3.80 m/s | 460 kWh | $63 |
| July | 3.25 m/s | 290 kWh | $40 |
| August | 3.31 m/s | 308 kWh | $42 |
| September | 3.77 m/s | 451 kWh | $62 |
| October | 4.28 m/s | 684 kWh | $94 |
| November | 4.60 m/s | 816 kWh | $112 |
| December | 4.49 m/s | 786 kWh | $108 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Crawford County averages 3.1 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.97 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.293, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 5,613 to 12,333 kWh a year, 120% 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 | 3.8 m/s | 5,613 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 4.28 m/s | 8,059 kWh | 90 years |
| 40 m | 4.66 m/s | 10,291 kWh | 71 years |
| 50 m | 4.97 m/s | 12,333 kWh | 59 years |
Counties around Crawford County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Sequoyah County, averages 4.62 m/s.
- Franklin County, AR: 3.43 m/s, 4,056 kWh, payback over 100 years (20 mi)
- Sebastian County, AR: 3.58 m/s, 4,653 kWh, payback over 100 years (27 mi)
- Washington County, AR: 3.94 m/s, 6,280 kWh, payback over 100 years (27 mi)
- Sequoyah County, OK: 4.62 m/s, 10,070 kWh, payback 72 years (29 mi)
- Adair County, OK: 3.94 m/s, 6,280 kWh, payback over 100 years (32 mi)
- Logan County, AR: 3.3 m/s, 3,577 kWh, payback over 100 years (38 mi)
Sun versus wind in Crawford County
Crawford County gets 4.44 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,296 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 806. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.6 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.