Wind Turbine Payback in Aiken County, SC
Wind turbine payback in Aiken 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 Aiken County, SC averages 4.27 m/s (9.6 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 8,008 kWh a year, worth $1,273 at SC's 15.9¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 79 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Aiken County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Aiken County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.6 m/s at the hub against 4.27 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,352 kWh a year here against the turbine's 801, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 62¢/kWh, 3.9 times what SC pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.6 m/s instead of 4.27. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of SC
Aiken County is the 1,909th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in SC is Beaufort County at 5.71 m/s, payback 36 years.
Month by month in Aiken County
March is the strongest month here, at 4.95 m/s and about 1,037 kWh. August is the weakest, 3.33 m/s and 314 kWh, so the best month makes 3.3 times the worst. November to March brings in 53% of the year's output in Aiken County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.72 m/s | 909 kWh | $145 |
| February | 4.81 m/s | 867 kWh | $138 |
| March | 4.95 m/s | 1,037 kWh | $165 |
| April | 4.91 m/s | 980 kWh | $156 |
| May | 4.26 m/s | 674 kWh | $107 |
| June | 3.67 m/s | 412 kWh | $66 |
| July | 3.48 m/s | 360 kWh | $57 |
| August | 3.33 m/s | 314 kWh | $50 |
| September | 3.97 m/s | 530 kWh | $84 |
| October | 4.21 m/s | 650 kWh | $103 |
| November | 4.44 m/s | 737 kWh | $117 |
| December | 4.49 m/s | 787 kWh | $125 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Aiken County averages 3.06 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.98 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.303, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 5,489 to 12,400 kWh a year, 126% 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 | 3.77 m/s | 5,489 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 4.27 m/s | 7,985 kWh | 79 years |
| 40 m | 4.65 m/s | 10,285 kWh | 61 years |
| 50 m | 4.98 m/s | 12,400 kWh | 51 years |
Counties around Aiken County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Barnwell County, averages 4.59 m/s.
- Barnwell County, SC: 4.59 m/s, 9,885 kWh, payback 64 years (23 mi)
- Edgefield County, SC: 3.26 m/s, 3,436 kWh, payback over 100 years (25 mi)
- Richmond County, GA: 4.27 m/s, 8,008 kWh, payback 81 years (29 mi)
- Lexington County, SC: 3.93 m/s, 6,231 kWh, payback over 100 years (31 mi)
- Saluda County, SC: 3.26 m/s, 3,436 kWh, payback over 100 years (32 mi)
- Columbia County, GA: 3.71 m/s, 5,209 kWh, payback over 100 years (36 mi)
Sun versus wind in Aiken County
Aiken County gets 4.63 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,352 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 801. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.7 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.