Wind Turbine Payback in Grenada County, MS
Wind turbine payback in Grenada 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 Grenada County, MS averages 4.24 m/s (9.5 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 7,842 kWh a year, worth $1,181 at MS's 15.06¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 85 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Grenada County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Grenada County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.9 m/s at the hub against 4.24 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,326 kWh a year here against the turbine's 784, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 64¢/kWh, 4.2 times what MS pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.9 m/s instead of 4.24. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MS
Grenada County is the 1,920th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in MS is DeSoto County at 5.13 m/s, payback 50 years.
Month by month in Grenada County
March is the strongest month here, at 4.99 m/s and about 1,061 kWh. July is the weakest, 3.08 m/s and 241 kWh, so the best month makes 4.4 times the worst. November to March brings in 56% of the year's output in Grenada County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.84 m/s | 975 kWh | $147 |
| February | 4.94 m/s | 932 kWh | $140 |
| March | 4.99 m/s | 1,061 kWh | $160 |
| April | 5.00 m/s | 1,032 kWh | $155 |
| May | 4.18 m/s | 640 kWh | $96 |
| June | 3.51 m/s | 359 kWh | $54 |
| July | 3.08 m/s | 241 kWh | $36 |
| August | 3.16 m/s | 264 kWh | $40 |
| September | 3.76 m/s | 446 kWh | $67 |
| October | 4.21 m/s | 652 kWh | $98 |
| November | 4.63 m/s | 832 kWh | $125 |
| December | 4.71 m/s | 905 kWh | $136 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Grenada County averages 3.01 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.98 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.313, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 5,334 to 12,400 kWh a year, 132% 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 | 3.74 m/s | 5,334 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 4.24 m/s | 7,865 kWh | 84 years |
| 40 m | 4.64 m/s | 10,220 kWh | 65 years |
| 50 m | 4.98 m/s | 12,400 kWh | 54 years |
Counties around Grenada County
None of the 6 closest counties is windier than Grenada County.
- Yalobusha County, MS: 4.24 m/s, 7,842 kWh, payback 85 years (19 mi)
- Montgomery County, MS: 3.36 m/s, 3,794 kWh, payback over 100 years (21 mi)
- Carroll County, MS: 3.76 m/s, 5,432 kWh, payback over 100 years (24 mi)
- Tallahatchie County, MS: 4.24 m/s, 7,842 kWh, payback 85 years (25 mi)
- Calhoun County, MS: 3.79 m/s, 5,568 kWh, payback over 100 years (29 mi)
- Webster County, MS: 3.36 m/s, 3,794 kWh, payback over 100 years (32 mi)
Sun versus wind in Grenada County
Grenada County gets 4.54 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,326 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 784. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.7 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.