Wind Turbine Payback in Cross County, AR
Wind turbine payback in Cross 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 Cross County, AR averages 5.27 m/s (11.8 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 14,397 kWh a year, worth $1,978 at AR's 13.74¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 51 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Cross County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Cross County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.4 m/s at the hub against 5.27 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,299 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,440, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 35¢/kWh, 2.5 times what AR pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.4 m/s instead of 5.27. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of AR
Cross County is the 1,333rd 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 Cross County
March is the strongest month here, at 6.19 m/s and about 1,791 kWh. July is the weakest, 3.89 m/s and 514 kWh, so the best month makes 3.5 times the worst. November to March brings in 54% of the year's output in Cross County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.97 m/s | 1,653 kWh | $227 |
| February | 6.05 m/s | 1,543 kWh | $212 |
| March | 6.19 m/s | 1,791 kWh | $246 |
| April | 6.26 m/s | 1,776 kWh | $244 |
| May | 5.29 m/s | 1,235 kWh | $170 |
| June | 4.39 m/s | 712 kWh | $98 |
| July | 3.89 m/s | 514 kWh | $71 |
| August | 3.95 m/s | 536 kWh | $74 |
| September | 4.54 m/s | 789 kWh | $108 |
| October | 5.23 m/s | 1,198 kWh | $165 |
| November | 5.79 m/s | 1,493 kWh | $205 |
| December | 5.77 m/s | 1,531 kWh | $210 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Cross County averages 3.99 m/s; at 50 m it is 6 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.253, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 10,944 to 19,704 kWh a year, 80% 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 | 4.76 m/s | 10,944 kWh | 67 years |
| 30 m | 5.27 m/s | 14,415 kWh | 51 years |
| 40 m | 5.67 m/s | 17,277 kWh | 42 years |
| 50 m | 6 m/s | 19,704 kWh | 37 years |
Counties around Cross County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, St. Francis County, averages 5.3 m/s.
- St. Francis County, AR: 5.3 m/s, 14,608 kWh, payback 50 years (18 mi)
- Poinsett County, AR: 5.27 m/s, 14,397 kWh, payback 51 years (20 mi)
- Crittenden County, AR: 5.13 m/s, 13,421 kWh, payback 54 years (27 mi)
- Woodruff County, AR: 5.12 m/s, 13,353 kWh, payback 55 years (28 mi)
- Jackson County, AR: 4.7 m/s, 10,571 kWh, payback 69 years (34 mi)
- Lee County, AR: 5.3 m/s, 14,608 kWh, payback 50 years (35 mi)
Sun versus wind in Cross County
Cross County gets 4.45 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,299 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,440. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.1 times. 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.