Wind Turbine Payback in Drew County, AR
Wind turbine payback in Drew 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 Drew County, AR averages 3.54 m/s (7.9 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 4,489 kWh a year, worth $617 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 Drew County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Drew County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.4 m/s at the hub against 3.54 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,332 kWh a year here against the turbine's 449, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 111¢/kWh, 8.1 times what AR pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.4 m/s instead of 3.54. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of AR
Drew County is the 2,473rd 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 Drew County
April is the strongest month here, at 4.11 m/s and about 586 kWh. July is the weakest, 2.79 m/s and 171 kWh, so the best month makes 3.4 times the worst. November to March brings in 52% of the year's output in Drew County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.79 m/s | 474 kWh | $65 |
| February | 3.92 m/s | 475 kWh | $65 |
| March | 4.03 m/s | 573 kWh | $79 |
| April | 4.11 m/s | 586 kWh | $81 |
| May | 3.58 m/s | 394 kWh | $54 |
| June | 3.12 m/s | 245 kWh | $34 |
| July | 2.79 m/s | 171 kWh | $23 |
| August | 2.85 m/s | 185 kWh | $25 |
| September | 3.22 m/s | 271 kWh | $37 |
| October | 3.49 m/s | 363 kWh | $50 |
| November | 3.76 m/s | 447 kWh | $61 |
| December | 3.74 m/s | 452 kWh | $62 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Drew County averages 2.22 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.39 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.424, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 2,533 to 8,690 kWh a year, 243% 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 | 2.98 m/s | 2,533 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.54 m/s | 4,469 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 3.99 m/s | 6,546 kWh | over 100 years |
| 50 m | 4.39 m/s | 8,690 kWh | 84 years |
Counties around Drew County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Desha County, averages 4.82 m/s.
- Lincoln County, AR: 4.04 m/s, 6,780 kWh, payback over 100 years (26 mi)
- Bradley County, AR: 3.54 m/s, 4,489 kWh, payback over 100 years (27 mi)
- Ashley County, AR: 3.7 m/s, 5,164 kWh, payback over 100 years (28 mi)
- Desha County, AR: 4.82 m/s, 11,341 kWh, payback 64 years (32 mi)
- Chicot County, AR: 4.75 m/s, 10,890 kWh, payback 67 years (33 mi)
- Cleveland County, AR: 3.14 m/s, 3,034 kWh, payback over 100 years (34 mi)
Sun versus wind in Drew County
Drew 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 449. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 3.0 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.