Wind Turbine Payback in Quitman County, MS
Wind turbine payback in Quitman 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 Quitman County, MS averages 4.85 m/s (10.8 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 11,537 kWh a year, worth $1,738 at MS's 15.06¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 58 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Quitman County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Quitman County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.9 m/s at the hub against 4.85 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,317 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,154, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 43¢/kWh, 2.9 times what MS pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.9 m/s instead of 4.85. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MS
Quitman County is the 1,529th 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 Quitman County
March is the strongest month here, at 5.72 m/s and about 1,499 kWh. July is the weakest, 3.47 m/s and 358 kWh, so the best month makes 4.2 times the worst. November to March brings in 56% of the year's output in Quitman County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.55 m/s | 1,396 kWh | $210 |
| February | 5.68 m/s | 1,329 kWh | $200 |
| March | 5.72 m/s | 1,499 kWh | $226 |
| April | 5.75 m/s | 1,466 kWh | $221 |
| May | 4.81 m/s | 958 kWh | $144 |
| June | 3.99 m/s | 536 kWh | $81 |
| July | 3.47 m/s | 358 kWh | $54 |
| August | 3.59 m/s | 397 kWh | $60 |
| September | 4.24 m/s | 646 kWh | $97 |
| October | 4.81 m/s | 958 kWh | $144 |
| November | 5.31 m/s | 1,206 kWh | $182 |
| December | 5.40 m/s | 1,299 kWh | $196 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Quitman County averages 3.64 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.55 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.262, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 8,549 to 16,399 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 | 4.37 m/s | 8,549 kWh | 78 years |
| 30 m | 4.85 m/s | 11,568 kWh | 57 years |
| 40 m | 5.23 m/s | 14,150 kWh | 47 years |
| 50 m | 5.55 m/s | 16,399 kWh | 41 years |
Counties around Quitman County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Tunica County, averages 5.08 m/s.
- Coahoma County, MS: 4.89 m/s, 11,800 kWh, payback 56 years (18 mi)
- Panola County, MS: 4.85 m/s, 11,537 kWh, payback 58 years (20 mi)
- Tallahatchie County, MS: 4.24 m/s, 7,842 kWh, payback 85 years (22 mi)
- Tunica County, MS: 5.08 m/s, 13,078 kWh, payback 51 years (28 mi)
- Tate County, MS: 4.85 m/s, 11,537 kWh, payback 58 years (34 mi)
- Phillips County, AR: 5.08 m/s, 13,078 kWh, payback 56 years (34 mi)
Sun versus wind in Quitman County
Quitman County gets 4.51 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,317 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,154. 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.