Wind Turbine Payback in Boyd County, KY
Wind turbine payback in Boyd 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 Boyd County, KY averages 3.14 m/s (7 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 3,034 kWh a year, worth $431 at KY's 14.2¢/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 Boyd County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Boyd County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.2 m/s at the hub against 3.14 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,168 kWh a year here against the turbine's 303, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 165¢/kWh, 11.6 times what KY pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.2 m/s instead of 3.14. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of KY
Boyd County is the 2,952nd windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in KY is Fulton County at 5.54 m/s, payback 43 years.
Month by month in Boyd County
January is the strongest month here, at 3.70 m/s and about 440 kWh. August is the weakest, 2.39 m/s and 96 kWh, so the best month makes 4.6 times the worst. November to March brings in 59% of the year's output in Boyd County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.70 m/s | 440 kWh | $62 |
| February | 3.78 m/s | 422 kWh | $60 |
| March | 3.68 m/s | 431 kWh | $61 |
| April | 3.63 m/s | 401 kWh | $57 |
| May | 3.00 m/s | 220 kWh | $31 |
| June | 2.69 m/s | 145 kWh | $21 |
| July | 2.44 m/s | 104 kWh | $15 |
| August | 2.39 m/s | 96 kWh | $14 |
| September | 2.62 m/s | 133 kWh | $19 |
| October | 3.07 m/s | 238 kWh | $34 |
| November | 3.28 m/s | 288 kWh | $41 |
| December | 3.43 m/s | 344 kWh | $49 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Boyd County averages 1.88 m/s; at 50 m it is 3.98 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 1,558 to 6,477 kWh a year, 316% 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 | 2.6 m/s | 1,558 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.14 m/s | 3,024 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 3.59 m/s | 4,682 kWh | over 100 years |
| 50 m | 3.98 m/s | 6,477 kWh | over 100 years |
Counties around Boyd County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Greenup County, averages 3.24 m/s.
- Lawrence County, OH: 3.14 m/s, 3,034 kWh, payback over 100 years (19 mi)
- Greenup County, KY: 3.24 m/s, 3,367 kWh, payback over 100 years (20 mi)
- Carter County, KY: 3.24 m/s, 3,367 kWh, payback over 100 years (20 mi)
- Lawrence County, KY: 3.14 m/s, 3,034 kWh, payback over 100 years (20 mi)
- Wayne County, WV: 3.14 m/s, 3,034 kWh, payback over 100 years (21 mi)
- Cabell County, WV: 3.14 m/s, 3,034 kWh, payback over 100 years (24 mi)
Sun versus wind in Boyd County
Boyd County gets 4 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,168 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 303. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 3.9 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.