Wind Turbine Payback in Charlotte County, FL
Wind turbine payback in Charlotte 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 Charlotte County, FL averages 4.34 m/s (9.7 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 8,403 kWh a year, worth $1,287 at FL's 15.32¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 78 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Charlotte County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Charlotte County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.8 m/s at the hub against 4.34 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,548 kWh a year here against the turbine's 840, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 60¢/kWh, 3.9 times what FL pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.8 m/s instead of 4.34. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of FL
Charlotte County is the 1,867th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in FL is Brevard County at 5.62 m/s, payback 39 years.
Month by month in Charlotte County
January is the strongest month here, at 5.07 m/s and about 1,106 kWh. July is the weakest, 2.98 m/s and 215 kWh, so the best month makes 5.1 times the worst. November to March brings in 58% of the year's output in Charlotte County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.07 m/s | 1,106 kWh | $169 |
| February | 4.89 m/s | 904 kWh | $138 |
| March | 5.07 m/s | 1,106 kWh | $169 |
| April | 4.72 m/s | 879 kWh | $135 |
| May | 4.17 m/s | 635 kWh | $97 |
| June | 3.35 m/s | 308 kWh | $47 |
| July | 2.98 m/s | 215 kWh | $33 |
| August | 3.19 m/s | 271 kWh | $42 |
| September | 3.92 m/s | 508 kWh | $78 |
| October | 4.77 m/s | 937 kWh | $144 |
| November | 5.02 m/s | 1,041 kWh | $159 |
| December | 4.97 m/s | 1,045 kWh | $160 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Charlotte County averages 3.3 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.93 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.249, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 6,203 to 12,065 kWh a year, 95% 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 | 3.92 m/s | 6,203 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 4.34 m/s | 8,409 kWh | 78 years |
| 40 m | 4.66 m/s | 10,342 kWh | 63 years |
| 50 m | 4.93 m/s | 12,065 kWh | 54 years |
Counties around Charlotte County
5 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Sarasota County, averages 4.8 m/s.
- DeSoto County, FL: 4.34 m/s, 8,403 kWh, payback 78 years (23 mi)
- Lee County, FL: 4.44 m/s, 8,982 kWh, payback 73 years (24 mi)
- Sarasota County, FL: 4.8 m/s, 11,212 kWh, payback 58 years (34 mi)
- Hardee County, FL: 4.37 m/s, 8,575 kWh, payback 76 years (42 mi)
- Manatee County, FL: 4.66 m/s, 10,320 kWh, payback 63 years (46 mi)
- Glades County, FL: 4.38 m/s, 8,632 kWh, payback 76 years (50 mi)
Sun versus wind in Charlotte County
Charlotte County gets 5.3 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,548 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 840. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.8 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.