Wind Turbine Payback in Lamar County, AL
Wind turbine payback in Lamar 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 Lamar County, AL averages 3.15 m/s (7 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 3,067 kWh a year, worth $506 at AL's 16.51¢/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 Lamar County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Lamar County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.5 m/s at the hub against 3.15 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,323 kWh a year here against the turbine's 307, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 163¢/kWh, 9.9 times what AL pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.5 m/s instead of 3.15. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of AL
Lamar County is the 2,941st windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in AL is Mobile County at 4.72 m/s, payback 57 years.
Month by month in Lamar County
March is the strongest month here, at 3.70 m/s and about 437 kWh. July is the weakest, 2.33 m/s and 88 kWh, so the best month makes 5.0 times the worst. November to March brings in 57% of the year's output in Lamar County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.56 m/s | 389 kWh | $64 |
| February | 3.70 m/s | 397 kWh | $66 |
| March | 3.70 m/s | 437 kWh | $72 |
| April | 3.66 m/s | 412 kWh | $68 |
| May | 3.06 m/s | 237 kWh | $39 |
| June | 2.58 m/s | 126 kWh | $21 |
| July | 2.33 m/s | 88 kWh | $15 |
| August | 2.41 m/s | 100 kWh | $17 |
| September | 2.88 m/s | 186 kWh | $31 |
| October | 3.16 m/s | 262 kWh | $43 |
| November | 3.39 m/s | 321 kWh | $53 |
| December | 3.42 m/s | 342 kWh | $56 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Lamar County averages 1.86 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.02 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.479, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 1,547 to 6,678 kWh a year, 332% 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 | 2.59 m/s | 1,547 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.15 m/s | 3,058 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 3.61 m/s | 4,788 kWh | over 100 years |
| 50 m | 4.02 m/s | 6,678 kWh | 91 years |
Counties around Lamar County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Monroe County, averages 4.39 m/s.
- Fayette County, AL: 2.99 m/s, 2,571 kWh, payback over 100 years (19 mi)
- Monroe County, MS: 4.39 m/s, 8,690 kWh, payback 76 years (24 mi)
- Marion County, AL: 3.15 m/s, 3,067 kWh, payback over 100 years (27 mi)
- Lowndes County, MS: 4.02 m/s, 6,678 kWh, payback 99 years (30 mi)
- Pickens County, AL: 3.08 m/s, 2,844 kWh, payback over 100 years (34 mi)
- Itawamba County, MS: 3.31 m/s, 3,612 kWh, payback over 100 years (38 mi)
Sun versus wind in Lamar County
Lamar County gets 4.53 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,323 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 307. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 4.3 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.