Wind Turbine Payback in White County, AR
Wind turbine payback in White 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 White County, AR averages 3.89 m/s (8.7 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 6,037 kWh a year, worth $830 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 White County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in White County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.4 m/s at the hub against 3.89 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,291 kWh a year here against the turbine's 604, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 83¢/kWh, 6.0 times what AR pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.4 m/s instead of 3.89. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of AR
White County is the 2,141st 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 White County
March is the strongest month here, at 4.56 m/s and about 824 kWh. July is the weakest, 2.95 m/s and 208 kWh, so the best month makes 4.0 times the worst. November to March brings in 56% of the year's output in White County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.41 m/s | 749 kWh | $103 |
| February | 4.49 m/s | 710 kWh | $98 |
| March | 4.56 m/s | 824 kWh | $113 |
| April | 4.57 m/s | 802 kWh | $110 |
| May | 3.88 m/s | 509 kWh | $70 |
| June | 3.26 m/s | 284 kWh | $39 |
| July | 2.95 m/s | 208 kWh | $29 |
| August | 2.98 m/s | 216 kWh | $30 |
| September | 3.36 m/s | 313 kWh | $43 |
| October | 3.82 m/s | 485 kWh | $67 |
| November | 4.18 m/s | 617 kWh | $85 |
| December | 4.19 m/s | 641 kWh | $88 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in White County averages 2.61 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.68 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.363, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 3,778 to 10,445 kWh a year, 176% 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 | 3.36 m/s | 3,778 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.89 m/s | 6,027 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 4.32 m/s | 8,266 kWh | 88 years |
| 50 m | 4.68 m/s | 10,445 kWh | 70 years |
Counties around White County
5 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Woodruff County, averages 5.12 m/s.
- Cleburne County, AR: 3.89 m/s, 6,037 kWh, payback over 100 years (27 mi)
- Woodruff County, AR: 5.12 m/s, 13,353 kWh, payback 55 years (29 mi)
- Prairie County, AR: 5.12 m/s, 13,353 kWh, payback 55 years (31 mi)
- Faulkner County, AR: 4.08 m/s, 6,986 kWh, payback over 100 years (34 mi)
- Independence County, AR: 4.7 m/s, 10,571 kWh, payback 69 years (35 mi)
- Lonoke County, AR: 4.68 m/s, 10,445 kWh, payback 70 years (35 mi)
Sun versus wind in White County
White County gets 4.42 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,291 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 604. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 2.1 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.