Wind Turbine Payback in Anson County, NC
Wind turbine payback in Anson 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 Anson County, NC averages 3.53 m/s (7.9 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 4,449 kWh a year, worth $665 at NC's 14.94¢/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 Anson County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Anson County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.9 m/s at the hub against 3.53 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,332 kWh a year here against the turbine's 445, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 112¢/kWh, 7.5 times what NC pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.9 m/s instead of 3.53. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of NC
Anson County is the 2,484th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in NC is Dare County at 6.91 m/s, payback 25 years.
Month by month in Anson County
March is the strongest month here, at 4.09 m/s and about 598 kWh. August is the weakest, 2.75 m/s and 164 kWh, so the best month makes 3.6 times the worst. November to March brings in 53% of the year's output in Anson County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.88 m/s | 508 kWh | $76 |
| February | 4.02 m/s | 514 kWh | $77 |
| March | 4.09 m/s | 598 kWh | $89 |
| April | 4.12 m/s | 593 kWh | $89 |
| May | 3.56 m/s | 388 kWh | $58 |
| June | 3.05 m/s | 225 kWh | $34 |
| July | 2.84 m/s | 182 kWh | $27 |
| August | 2.75 m/s | 164 kWh | $25 |
| September | 3.28 m/s | 287 kWh | $43 |
| October | 3.50 m/s | 369 kWh | $55 |
| November | 3.64 m/s | 404 kWh | $60 |
| December | 3.68 m/s | 432 kWh | $65 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Anson County averages 2.27 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.33 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.401, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 2,597 to 8,346 kWh a year, 221% 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 m/s | 2,597 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.53 m/s | 4,440 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 3.96 m/s | 6,375 kWh | over 100 years |
| 50 m | 4.33 m/s | 8,346 kWh | 80 years |
Counties around Anson County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Marlboro County, averages 5 m/s.
- Richmond County, NC: 3.53 m/s, 4,449 kWh, payback over 100 years (20 mi)
- Chesterfield County, SC: 4.46 m/s, 9,100 kWh, payback 69 years (24 mi)
- Union County, NC: 3.43 m/s, 4,056 kWh, payback over 100 years (24 mi)
- Stanly County, NC: 3.74 m/s, 5,342 kWh, payback over 100 years (25 mi)
- Montgomery County, NC: 3.74 m/s, 5,342 kWh, payback over 100 years (27 mi)
- Marlboro County, SC: 5 m/s, 12,535 kWh, payback 50 years (36 mi)
Sun versus wind in Anson County
Anson County gets 4.56 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,332 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 445. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 3.0 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.