Wind Turbine Payback in Pope County, AR
Wind turbine payback in Pope 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 Pope County, AR averages 3.19 m/s (7.1 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 3,198 kWh a year, worth $439 at AR's 13.74¢/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 Pope County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Pope County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.4 m/s at the hub against 3.19 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,285 kWh a year here against the turbine's 320, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 156¢/kWh, 11.4 times what AR pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.4 m/s instead of 3.19. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of AR
Pope County is the 2,888th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in AR is Mississippi County at 5.35 m/s, payback 49 years.
Month by month in Pope County
March is the strongest month here, at 3.68 m/s and about 432 kWh. July is the weakest, 2.51 m/s and 116 kWh, so the best month makes 3.7 times the worst. November to March brings in 53% of the year's output in Pope County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.49 m/s | 363 kWh | $50 |
| February | 3.59 m/s | 359 kWh | $49 |
| March | 3.68 m/s | 432 kWh | $59 |
| April | 3.70 m/s | 424 kWh | $58 |
| May | 3.19 m/s | 270 kWh | $37 |
| June | 2.80 m/s | 168 kWh | $23 |
| July | 2.51 m/s | 116 kWh | $16 |
| August | 2.54 m/s | 122 kWh | $17 |
| September | 2.88 m/s | 185 kWh | $25 |
| October | 3.19 m/s | 270 kWh | $37 |
| November | 3.39 m/s | 321 kWh | $44 |
| December | 3.33 m/s | 312 kWh | $43 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Pope County averages 1.91 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.04 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.465, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 1,652 to 6,780 kWh a year, 310% 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 | 2.64 m/s | 1,652 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.19 m/s | 3,184 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 3.64 m/s | 4,913 kWh | over 100 years |
| 50 m | 4.04 m/s | 6,780 kWh | over 100 years |
Counties around Pope County
6 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Conway County, averages 3.59 m/s.
- Conway County, AR: 3.59 m/s, 4,694 kWh, payback over 100 years (23 mi)
- Johnson County, AR: 3.43 m/s, 4,056 kWh, payback over 100 years (26 mi)
- Van Buren County, AR: 3.59 m/s, 4,694 kWh, payback over 100 years (30 mi)
- Newton County, AR: 3.49 m/s, 4,289 kWh, payback over 100 years (33 mi)
- Searcy County, AR: 3.35 m/s, 3,757 kWh, payback over 100 years (36 mi)
- Perry County, AR: 3.24 m/s, 3,367 kWh, payback over 100 years (36 mi)
Sun versus wind in Pope County
Pope County gets 4.4 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,285 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 320. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 4.0 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.