Wind Turbine Payback in Chester County, TN
Wind turbine payback in Chester 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 Chester County, TN averages 4.34 m/s (9.7 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 8,403 kWh a year, worth $1,160 at TN's 13.8¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 86 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Chester County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Chester County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.4 m/s at the hub against 4.34 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,279 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, 4.3 times what TN pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.4 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 TN
Chester 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 TN is Lake County at 5.54 m/s, payback 44 years.
Month by month in Chester County
March is the strongest month here, at 5.13 m/s and about 1,141 kWh. July is the weakest, 3.21 m/s and 278 kWh, so the best month makes 4.1 times the worst. November to March brings in 56% of the year's output in Chester County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.98 m/s | 1,052 kWh | $145 |
| February | 5.12 m/s | 1,022 kWh | $141 |
| March | 5.13 m/s | 1,141 kWh | $157 |
| April | 5.15 m/s | 1,114 kWh | $154 |
| May | 4.27 m/s | 680 kWh | $94 |
| June | 3.54 m/s | 367 kWh | $51 |
| July | 3.21 m/s | 278 kWh | $38 |
| August | 3.25 m/s | 290 kWh | $40 |
| September | 3.76 m/s | 446 kWh | $62 |
| October | 4.28 m/s | 684 kWh | $94 |
| November | 4.68 m/s | 858 kWh | $118 |
| December | 4.76 m/s | 929 kWh | $128 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Chester County averages 3.09 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.08 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.309, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 5,741 to 13,078 kWh a year, 128% 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 | 3.83 m/s | 5,741 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 4.34 m/s | 8,393 kWh | 86 years |
| 40 m | 4.74 m/s | 10,835 kWh | 67 years |
| 50 m | 5.08 m/s | 13,078 kWh | 55 years |
Counties around Chester County
None of the 6 closest counties is windier than Chester County.
- McNairy County, TN: 3.47 m/s, 4,211 kWh, payback over 100 years (17 mi)
- Madison County, TN: 4.34 m/s, 8,403 kWh, payback 86 years (18 mi)
- Henderson County, TN: 3.28 m/s, 3,506 kWh, payback over 100 years (20 mi)
- Hardeman County, TN: 3.47 m/s, 4,211 kWh, payback over 100 years (25 mi)
- Hardin County, TN: 3.44 m/s, 4,094 kWh, payback over 100 years (28 mi)
- Decatur County, TN: 3.28 m/s, 3,506 kWh, payback over 100 years (31 mi)
Sun versus wind in Chester County
Chester County gets 4.38 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,279 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 840. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.5 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.