Wind Turbine Payback in Kemper County, MS
Wind turbine payback in Kemper 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 Kemper County, MS averages 3.27 m/s (7.3 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 3,471 kWh a year, worth $523 at MS's 15.06¢/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 Kemper County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Kemper County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.9 m/s at the hub against 3.27 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,337 kWh a year here against the turbine's 347, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 144¢/kWh, 9.6 times what MS pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.9 m/s instead of 3.27. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MS
Kemper County is the 2,787th 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 Kemper County
March is the strongest month here, at 3.73 m/s and about 451 kWh. July is the weakest, 2.55 m/s and 124 kWh, so the best month makes 3.6 times the worst. November to March brings in 55% of the year's output in Kemper County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.63 m/s | 413 kWh | $62 |
| February | 3.70 m/s | 397 kWh | $60 |
| March | 3.73 m/s | 451 kWh | $68 |
| April | 3.74 m/s | 440 kWh | $66 |
| May | 3.21 m/s | 278 kWh | $42 |
| June | 2.77 m/s | 163 kWh | $25 |
| July | 2.55 m/s | 124 kWh | $19 |
| August | 2.60 m/s | 133 kWh | $20 |
| September | 3.02 m/s | 219 kWh | $33 |
| October | 3.31 m/s | 307 kWh | $46 |
| November | 3.51 m/s | 359 kWh | $54 |
| December | 3.52 m/s | 374 kWh | $56 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Kemper County averages 2.02 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.09 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.438, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 1,890 to 7,038 kWh a year, 272% 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 | 2.74 m/s | 1,890 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.27 m/s | 3,471 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 3.71 m/s | 5,205 kWh | over 100 years |
| 50 m | 4.09 m/s | 7,038 kWh | 94 years |
Counties around Kemper County
None of the 6 closest counties is windier than Kemper County.
- Lauderdale County, MS: 3.04 m/s, 2,721 kWh, payback over 100 years (24 mi)
- Noxubee County, MS: 3.27 m/s, 3,471 kWh, payback over 100 years (25 mi)
- Sumter County, AL: 3.17 m/s, 3,132 kWh, payback over 100 years (27 mi)
- Neshoba County, MS: 3.05 m/s, 2,751 kWh, payback over 100 years (29 mi)
- Winston County, MS: 3.27 m/s, 3,471 kWh, payback over 100 years (33 mi)
- Newton County, MS: 3.03 m/s, 2,691 kWh, payback over 100 years (37 mi)
Sun versus wind in Kemper County
Kemper County gets 4.58 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,337 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 347. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 3.9 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.