Wind Turbine Payback in Lowndes County, MS
Wind turbine payback in Lowndes 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 Lowndes County, MS averages 4.02 m/s (9 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 6,678 kWh a year, worth $1,006 at MS's 15.06¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 99 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Lowndes County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Lowndes County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.9 m/s at the hub against 4.02 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,323 kWh a year here against the turbine's 668, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 75¢/kWh, 5.0 times what MS pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.9 m/s instead of 4.02. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MS
Lowndes County is the 2,042nd 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 Lowndes County
March is the strongest month here, at 4.69 m/s and about 890 kWh. July is the weakest, 2.99 m/s and 217 kWh, so the best month makes 4.1 times the worst. November to March brings in 56% of the year's output in Lowndes County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.58 m/s | 837 kWh | $126 |
| February | 4.68 m/s | 800 kWh | $120 |
| March | 4.69 m/s | 890 kWh | $134 |
| April | 4.69 m/s | 862 kWh | $130 |
| May | 3.92 m/s | 525 kWh | $79 |
| June | 3.31 m/s | 296 kWh | $45 |
| July | 2.99 m/s | 217 kWh | $33 |
| August | 3.03 m/s | 228 kWh | $34 |
| September | 3.63 m/s | 400 kWh | $60 |
| October | 4.03 m/s | 572 kWh | $86 |
| November | 4.35 m/s | 693 kWh | $104 |
| December | 4.43 m/s | 758 kWh | $114 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Lowndes County averages 2.84 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.73 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.317, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 4,479 to 10,762 kWh a year, 140% 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 | 3.54 m/s | 4,479 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 4.02 m/s | 6,693 kWh | 99 years |
| 40 m | 4.41 m/s | 8,789 kWh | 76 years |
| 50 m | 4.73 m/s | 10,762 kWh | 62 years |
Counties around Lowndes County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Monroe County, averages 4.39 m/s.
- Pickens County, AL: 3.08 m/s, 2,844 kWh, payback over 100 years (23 mi)
- Clay County, MS: 4.02 m/s, 6,678 kWh, payback 99 years (24 mi)
- Oktibbeha County, MS: 4.02 m/s, 6,678 kWh, payback 99 years (25 mi)
- Noxubee County, MS: 3.27 m/s, 3,471 kWh, payback over 100 years (26 mi)
- Monroe County, MS: 4.39 m/s, 8,690 kWh, payback 76 years (29 mi)
- Lamar County, AL: 3.15 m/s, 3,067 kWh, payback over 100 years (30 mi)
Sun versus wind in Lowndes County
Lowndes 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 668. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 2.0 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.