Wind Turbine Payback in Bamberg County, SC
Wind turbine payback in Bamberg 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 Bamberg County, SC averages 4.02 m/s (9 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 6,678 kWh a year, worth $1,062 at SC's 15.9¢/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 Bamberg County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Bamberg County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.6 m/s at the hub against 4.02 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,352 kWh a year here against the turbine's 668, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 75¢/kWh, 4.7 times what SC pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.6 m/s instead of 4.02. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of SC
Bamberg County is the 2,042nd 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 Bamberg County
March is the strongest month here, at 4.62 m/s and about 856 kWh. August is the weakest, 3.18 m/s and 268 kWh, so the best month makes 3.2 times the worst. November to March brings in 52% of the year's output in Bamberg County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.39 m/s | 740 kWh | $118 |
| February | 4.49 m/s | 710 kWh | $113 |
| March | 4.62 m/s | 856 kWh | $136 |
| April | 4.55 m/s | 794 kWh | $126 |
| May | 4.03 m/s | 573 kWh | $91 |
| June | 3.49 m/s | 351 kWh | $56 |
| July | 3.32 m/s | 309 kWh | $49 |
| August | 3.18 m/s | 268 kWh | $43 |
| September | 3.77 m/s | 451 kWh | $72 |
| October | 3.99 m/s | 555 kWh | $88 |
| November | 4.17 m/s | 612 kWh | $97 |
| December | 4.18 m/s | 636 kWh | $101 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Bamberg County averages 2.76 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.78 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.341, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 4,318 to 11,082 kWh a year, 157% 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 | 3.5 m/s | 4,318 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 4.02 m/s | 6,657 kWh | 95 years |
| 40 m | 4.43 m/s | 8,922 kWh | 71 years |
| 50 m | 4.78 m/s | 11,082 kWh | 57 years |
Counties around Bamberg County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Barnwell County, averages 4.59 m/s.
- Orangeburg County, SC: 4.42 m/s, 8,865 kWh, payback 71 years (22 mi)
- Barnwell County, SC: 4.59 m/s, 9,885 kWh, payback 64 years (22 mi)
- Allendale County, SC: 4.02 m/s, 6,678 kWh, payback 94 years (24 mi)
- Hampton County, SC: 4.02 m/s, 6,678 kWh, payback 94 years (30 mi)
- Colleton County, SC: 4.05 m/s, 6,831 kWh, payback 92 years (34 mi)
- Calhoun County, SC: 4.42 m/s, 8,865 kWh, payback 71 years (36 mi)
Sun versus wind in Bamberg County
Bamberg 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 668. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 2.0 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.