Wind Turbine Payback in Issaquena County, MS
Wind turbine payback in Issaquena 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 Issaquena County, MS averages 4.9 m/s (11 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 11,866 kWh a year, worth $1,787 at MS's 15.06¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 56 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Issaquena County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Issaquena County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.9 m/s at the hub against 4.9 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,352 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,187, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 42¢/kWh, 2.8 times what MS pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.9 m/s instead of 4.9. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MS
Issaquena County is the 1,502nd 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 Issaquena County
March is the strongest month here, at 5.72 m/s and about 1,500 kWh. July is the weakest, 3.73 m/s and 450 kWh, so the best month makes 3.3 times the worst. November to March brings in 54% of the year's output in Issaquena County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.47 m/s | 1,344 kWh | $202 |
| February | 5.64 m/s | 1,306 kWh | $197 |
| March | 5.72 m/s | 1,500 kWh | $226 |
| April | 5.74 m/s | 1,462 kWh | $220 |
| May | 4.88 m/s | 994 kWh | $150 |
| June | 4.18 m/s | 616 kWh | $93 |
| July | 3.73 m/s | 450 kWh | $68 |
| August | 3.77 m/s | 467 kWh | $70 |
| September | 4.34 m/s | 692 kWh | $104 |
| October | 4.79 m/s | 946 kWh | $142 |
| November | 5.23 m/s | 1,163 kWh | $175 |
| December | 5.37 m/s | 1,285 kWh | $194 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Issaquena County averages 3.67 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.61 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.264, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 8,775 to 16,834 kWh a year, 92% 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 | 4.4 m/s | 8,775 kWh | 76 years |
| 30 m | 4.9 m/s | 11,881 kWh | 56 years |
| 40 m | 5.29 m/s | 14,531 kWh | 46 years |
| 50 m | 5.61 m/s | 16,834 kWh | 39 years |
Counties around Issaquena County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Sharkey County, averages 4.92 m/s.
- East Carroll Parish, LA: 4.77 m/s, 11,018 kWh, payback 68 years (14 mi)
- Sharkey County, MS: 4.92 m/s, 11,999 kWh, payback 55 years (14 mi)
- West Carroll Parish, LA: 4.9 m/s, 11,866 kWh, payback 64 years (26 mi)
- Warren County, MS: 4.39 m/s, 8,690 kWh, payback 76 years (29 mi)
- Madison Parish, LA: 4.77 m/s, 11,018 kWh, payback 68 years (31 mi)
- Yazoo County, MS: 4.92 m/s, 11,999 kWh, payback 55 years (36 mi)
Sun versus wind in Issaquena County
Issaquena County gets 4.63 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,352 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,187. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.1 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.