Wind Turbine Payback in Faulkner County, AR
Wind turbine payback in Faulkner 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 Faulkner County, AR averages 4.08 m/s (9.1 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 6,986 kWh a year, worth $960 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 Faulkner County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Faulkner County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.4 m/s at the hub against 4.08 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,279 kWh a year here against the turbine's 699, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 72¢/kWh, 5.2 times what AR pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.4 m/s instead of 4.08. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of AR
Faulkner County is the 2,011th 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 Faulkner County
April is the strongest month here, at 4.78 m/s and about 912 kWh. July is the weakest, 3.21 m/s and 277 kWh, so the best month makes 3.3 times the worst. November to March brings in 52% of the year's output in Faulkner County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.43 m/s | 760 kWh | $104 |
| February | 4.54 m/s | 737 kWh | $101 |
| March | 4.70 m/s | 896 kWh | $123 |
| April | 4.78 m/s | 912 kWh | $125 |
| May | 4.13 m/s | 614 kWh | $84 |
| June | 3.54 m/s | 369 kWh | $51 |
| July | 3.21 m/s | 277 kWh | $38 |
| August | 3.24 m/s | 287 kWh | $39 |
| September | 3.67 m/s | 413 kWh | $57 |
| October | 4.06 m/s | 584 kWh | $80 |
| November | 4.36 m/s | 699 kWh | $96 |
| December | 4.27 m/s | 681 kWh | $94 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Faulkner County averages 2.88 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.79 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.316, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 4,677 to 11,147 kWh a year, 138% 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 | 3.59 m/s | 4,677 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 4.08 m/s | 6,965 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 4.46 m/s | 9,123 kWh | 80 years |
| 50 m | 4.79 m/s | 11,147 kWh | 65 years |
Counties around Faulkner County
None of the 6 closest counties is windier than Faulkner County.
- Conway County, AR: 3.59 m/s, 4,694 kWh, payback over 100 years (22 mi)
- Pulaski County, AR: 4.08 m/s, 6,986 kWh, payback over 100 years (26 mi)
- Van Buren County, AR: 3.59 m/s, 4,694 kWh, payback over 100 years (32 mi)
- White County, AR: 3.89 m/s, 6,037 kWh, payback over 100 years (34 mi)
- Cleburne County, AR: 3.89 m/s, 6,037 kWh, payback over 100 years (36 mi)
- Perry County, AR: 3.24 m/s, 3,367 kWh, payback over 100 years (36 mi)
Sun versus wind in Faulkner County
Faulkner County gets 4.38 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,279 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 699. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.8 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.