Wind Turbine Payback in Camden County, NC
Wind turbine payback in Camden 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 Camden County, NC averages 5.82 m/s (13 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 18,374 kWh a year, worth $2,745 at NC's 14.94¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 36 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Camden County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Camden County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.9 m/s at the hub against 5.82 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,270 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,837, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 27¢/kWh, 1.8 times what NC pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.9 m/s instead of 5.82. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of NC
Camden County is the 1,048th 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 Camden County
March is the strongest month here, at 6.64 m/s and about 2,073 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.56 m/s and 822 kWh, so the best month makes 2.5 times the worst. November to March brings in 50% of the year's output in Camden County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.46 m/s | 1,962 kWh | $293 |
| February | 6.53 m/s | 1,812 kWh | $271 |
| March | 6.64 m/s | 2,073 kWh | $310 |
| April | 6.65 m/s | 2,012 kWh | $301 |
| May | 5.82 m/s | 1,563 kWh | $234 |
| June | 5.06 m/s | 1,066 kWh | $159 |
| July | 4.86 m/s | 985 kWh | $147 |
| August | 4.56 m/s | 822 kWh | $123 |
| September | 5.41 m/s | 1,267 kWh | $189 |
| October | 5.71 m/s | 1,490 kWh | $223 |
| November | 6.06 m/s | 1,654 kWh | $247 |
| December | 6.20 m/s | 1,799 kWh | $269 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Camden County averages 4.57 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.52 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.221, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 14,784 to 23,554 kWh a year, 59% 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 | 5.32 m/s | 14,784 kWh | 45 years |
| 30 m | 5.82 m/s | 18,403 kWh | 36 years |
| 40 m | 6.21 m/s | 21,234 kWh | 32 years |
| 50 m | 6.52 m/s | 23,554 kWh | 28 years |
Counties around Camden County
None of the 6 closest counties is windier than Camden County.
- Pasquotank County, NC: 5.82 m/s, 18,374 kWh, payback 36 years (8 mi)
- Currituck County, NC: 5.82 m/s, 18,374 kWh, payback 36 years (12 mi)
- Perquimans County, NC: 4.97 m/s, 12,333 kWh, payback 54 years (17 mi)
- Chesapeake city, VA: 5.82 m/s, 18,374 kWh, payback 32 years (25 mi)
- Chowan County, NC: 4.96 m/s, 12,266 kWh, payback 55 years (29 mi)
- Gates County, NC: 5.06 m/s, 12,941 kWh, payback 52 years (31 mi)
Sun versus wind in Camden County
Camden County gets 4.35 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,270 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,837. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.4 times. 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.