Wind Turbine Payback in Tunica County, MS
Wind turbine payback in Tunica 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 Tunica County, MS averages 5.08 m/s (11.4 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 13,078 kWh a year, worth $1,970 at MS's 15.06¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 51 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Tunica County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Tunica County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.9 m/s at the hub against 5.08 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,317 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,308, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 38¢/kWh, 2.5 times what MS pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.9 m/s instead of 5.08. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MS
Tunica County is the 1,418th 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 Tunica County
March is the strongest month here, at 5.98 m/s and about 1,659 kWh. July is the weakest, 3.61 m/s and 407 kWh, so the best month makes 4.1 times the worst. November to March brings in 55% of the year's output in Tunica County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.81 m/s | 1,555 kWh | $234 |
| February | 5.90 m/s | 1,454 kWh | $219 |
| March | 5.98 m/s | 1,659 kWh | $250 |
| April | 6.03 m/s | 1,638 kWh | $247 |
| May | 5.10 m/s | 1,124 kWh | $169 |
| June | 4.18 m/s | 619 kWh | $93 |
| July | 3.61 m/s | 407 kWh | $61 |
| August | 3.74 m/s | 453 kWh | $68 |
| September | 4.39 m/s | 716 kWh | $108 |
| October | 5.01 m/s | 1,068 kWh | $161 |
| November | 5.57 m/s | 1,357 kWh | $204 |
| December | 5.66 m/s | 1,462 kWh | $220 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Tunica County averages 3.81 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.8 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.261, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 9,740 to 18,226 kWh a year, 87% 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 | 4.57 m/s | 9,740 kWh | 68 years |
| 30 m | 5.08 m/s | 13,051 kWh | 51 years |
| 40 m | 5.47 m/s | 15,834 kWh | 42 years |
| 50 m | 5.8 m/s | 18,226 kWh | 36 years |
Counties around Tunica County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Lee County, averages 5.3 m/s.
- Tate County, MS: 4.85 m/s, 11,537 kWh, payback 58 years (24 mi)
- Lee County, AR: 5.3 m/s, 14,608 kWh, payback 50 years (25 mi)
- DeSoto County, MS: 5.13 m/s, 13,421 kWh, payback 50 years (27 mi)
- Quitman County, MS: 4.85 m/s, 11,537 kWh, payback 58 years (28 mi)
- Panola County, MS: 4.85 m/s, 11,537 kWh, payback 58 years (31 mi)
- Phillips County, AR: 5.08 m/s, 13,078 kWh, payback 56 years (32 mi)
Sun versus wind in Tunica County
Tunica 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 1,308. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.0 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.