Wind Turbine Payback in Union County, MS
Wind turbine payback in Union 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 Union County, MS averages 4.09 m/s (9.1 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 7,038 kWh a year, worth $1,060 at MS's 15.06¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 94 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Union County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Union County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.9 m/s at the hub against 4.09 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,302 kWh a year here against the turbine's 704, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 71¢/kWh, 4.7 times what MS pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.9 m/s instead of 4.09. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MS
Union County is the 2,005th 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 Union County
March is the strongest month here, at 4.86 m/s and about 987 kWh. July is the weakest, 2.96 m/s and 212 kWh, so the best month makes 4.7 times the worst. November to March brings in 57% of the year's output in Union County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.65 m/s | 871 kWh | $131 |
| February | 4.82 m/s | 870 kWh | $131 |
| March | 4.86 m/s | 987 kWh | $149 |
| April | 4.85 m/s | 946 kWh | $142 |
| May | 4.03 m/s | 573 kWh | $86 |
| June | 3.35 m/s | 308 kWh | $46 |
| July | 2.96 m/s | 212 kWh | $32 |
| August | 3.02 m/s | 227 kWh | $34 |
| September | 3.62 m/s | 397 kWh | $60 |
| October | 4.04 m/s | 576 kWh | $87 |
| November | 4.40 m/s | 719 kWh | $108 |
| December | 4.50 m/s | 795 kWh | $120 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Union County averages 2.93 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.78 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.304, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 4,811 to 11,082 kWh a year, 130% 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 | 3.62 m/s | 4,811 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 4.09 m/s | 7,051 kWh | 94 years |
| 40 m | 4.47 m/s | 9,139 kWh | 73 years |
| 50 m | 4.78 m/s | 11,082 kWh | 60 years |
Counties around Union County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Pontotoc County, averages 4.39 m/s.
- Pontotoc County, MS: 4.39 m/s, 8,690 kWh, payback 76 years (18 mi)
- Tippah County, MS: 3.47 m/s, 4,211 kWh, payback over 100 years (20 mi)
- Lee County, MS: 4.09 m/s, 7,038 kWh, payback 94 years (23 mi)
- Benton County, MS: 4.35 m/s, 8,460 kWh, payback 79 years (25 mi)
- Prentiss County, MS: 4.09 m/s, 7,038 kWh, payback 94 years (29 mi)
- Lafayette County, MS: 3.81 m/s, 5,660 kWh, payback over 100 years (29 mi)
Sun versus wind in Union County
Union County gets 4.46 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,302 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 704. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.8 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.