Wind Turbine Payback in Bibb County, GA
Wind turbine payback in Bibb 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 Bibb County, GA averages 3.23 m/s (7.2 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 3,333 kWh a year, worth $516 at GA's 15.48¢/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 Bibb County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Bibb County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.8 m/s at the hub against 3.23 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,358 kWh a year here against the turbine's 333, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 150¢/kWh, 9.7 times what GA pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.8 m/s instead of 3.23. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of GA
Bibb County is the 2,844th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in GA is Glynn County at 5.08 m/s, payback 49 years.
Month by month in Bibb County
March is the strongest month here, at 3.74 m/s and about 452 kWh. August is the weakest, 2.50 m/s and 115 kWh, so the best month makes 3.9 times the worst. November to March brings in 56% of the year's output in Bibb County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.67 m/s | 428 kWh | $66 |
| February | 3.65 m/s | 379 kWh | $59 |
| March | 3.74 m/s | 452 kWh | $70 |
| April | 3.66 m/s | 409 kWh | $63 |
| May | 3.17 m/s | 266 kWh | $41 |
| June | 2.72 m/s | 151 kWh | $23 |
| July | 2.55 m/s | 124 kWh | $19 |
| August | 2.50 m/s | 115 kWh | $18 |
| September | 2.96 m/s | 205 kWh | $32 |
| October | 3.22 m/s | 280 kWh | $43 |
| November | 3.42 m/s | 330 kWh | $51 |
| December | 3.47 m/s | 359 kWh | $56 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Bibb County averages 1.98 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.05 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.445, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 1,782 to 6,831 kWh a year, 283% 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 | 2.69 m/s | 1,782 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.23 m/s | 3,321 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 3.67 m/s | 5,021 kWh | over 100 years |
| 50 m | 4.05 m/s | 6,831 kWh | 95 years |
Counties around Bibb County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Crawford County, averages 4.01 m/s.
- Jones County, GA: 3.23 m/s, 3,333 kWh, payback over 100 years (17 mi)
- Crawford County, GA: 4.01 m/s, 6,628 kWh, payback 98 years (18 mi)
- Peach County, GA: 4.01 m/s, 6,628 kWh, payback 98 years (18 mi)
- Twiggs County, GA: 3.94 m/s, 6,280 kWh, payback over 100 years (18 mi)
- Monroe County, GA: 3.23 m/s, 3,333 kWh, payback over 100 years (20 mi)
- Houston County, GA: 4.01 m/s, 6,628 kWh, payback 98 years (24 mi)
Sun versus wind in Bibb County
Bibb County gets 4.65 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,358 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 333. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 4.1 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.