Wind Turbine Payback in Yell County, AR
Wind turbine payback in Yell 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 Yell County, AR averages 3.24 m/s (7.2 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 3,367 kWh a year, worth $463 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 Yell County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Yell County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.4 m/s at the hub against 3.24 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,285 kWh a year here against the turbine's 337, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 149¢/kWh, 10.8 times what AR pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.4 m/s instead of 3.24. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of AR
Yell County is the 2,831st 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 Yell County
April is the strongest month here, at 3.78 m/s and about 452 kWh. July is the weakest, 2.62 m/s and 138 kWh, so the best month makes 3.3 times the worst. November to March brings in 51% of the year's output in Yell County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.45 m/s | 352 kWh | $48 |
| February | 3.54 m/s | 344 kWh | $47 |
| March | 3.69 m/s | 434 kWh | $60 |
| April | 3.78 m/s | 452 kWh | $62 |
| May | 3.31 m/s | 307 kWh | $42 |
| June | 2.91 m/s | 192 kWh | $26 |
| July | 2.62 m/s | 138 kWh | $19 |
| August | 2.63 m/s | 139 kWh | $19 |
| September | 2.93 m/s | 198 kWh | $27 |
| October | 3.23 m/s | 284 kWh | $39 |
| November | 3.44 m/s | 338 kWh | $46 |
| December | 3.33 m/s | 314 kWh | $43 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Yell County averages 1.94 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.11 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.466, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 1,753 to 7,143 kWh a year, 307% 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 | 2.68 m/s | 1,753 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.24 m/s | 3,365 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 3.7 m/s | 5,182 kWh | over 100 years |
| 50 m | 4.11 m/s | 7,143 kWh | over 100 years |
Counties around Yell County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Scott County, averages 3.58 m/s.
- Logan County, AR: 3.3 m/s, 3,577 kWh, payback over 100 years (23 mi)
- Perry County, AR: 3.24 m/s, 3,367 kWh, payback over 100 years (27 mi)
- Garland County, AR: 3.22 m/s, 3,299 kWh, payback over 100 years (33 mi)
- Montgomery County, AR: 3.31 m/s, 3,612 kWh, payback over 100 years (34 mi)
- Pope County, AR: 3.19 m/s, 3,198 kWh, payback over 100 years (38 mi)
- Scott County, AR: 3.58 m/s, 4,653 kWh, payback over 100 years (38 mi)
Sun versus wind in Yell County
Yell 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 337. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 3.8 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.