Wind Turbine Payback in Colquitt County, GA
Wind turbine payback in Colquitt 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 Colquitt County, GA averages 4.32 m/s (9.7 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 8,289 kWh a year, worth $1,283 at GA's 15.48¢/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 Colquitt County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Colquitt County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.8 m/s at the hub against 4.32 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,399 kWh a year here against the turbine's 829, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 60¢/kWh, 3.9 times what GA pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.8 m/s instead of 4.32. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of GA
Colquitt County is the 1,882nd 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 Colquitt County
March is the strongest month here, at 4.89 m/s and about 1,005 kWh. July is the weakest, 3.35 m/s and 319 kWh, so the best month makes 3.2 times the worst. November to March brings in 55% of the year's output in Colquitt County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.87 m/s | 990 kWh | $153 |
| February | 4.87 m/s | 894 kWh | $138 |
| March | 4.89 m/s | 1,005 kWh | $156 |
| April | 4.67 m/s | 853 kWh | $132 |
| May | 4.17 m/s | 633 kWh | $98 |
| June | 3.56 m/s | 374 kWh | $58 |
| July | 3.35 m/s | 319 kWh | $49 |
| August | 3.40 m/s | 335 kWh | $52 |
| September | 4.13 m/s | 598 kWh | $93 |
| October | 4.49 m/s | 787 kWh | $122 |
| November | 4.76 m/s | 898 kWh | $139 |
| December | 4.76 m/s | 933 kWh | $144 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Colquitt County averages 3.15 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.01 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.288, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 5,838 to 12,602 kWh a year, 116% 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 | 3.85 m/s | 5,838 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 4.32 m/s | 8,315 kWh | 78 years |
| 40 m | 4.7 m/s | 10,560 kWh | 61 years |
| 50 m | 5.01 m/s | 12,602 kWh | 51 years |
Counties around Colquitt County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Tift County, averages 4.84 m/s.
- Cook County, GA: 3.98 m/s, 6,477 kWh, payback 100 years (20 mi)
- Tift County, GA: 4.84 m/s, 11,472 kWh, payback 56 years (23 mi)
- Thomas County, GA: 4.32 m/s, 8,289 kWh, payback 78 years (24 mi)
- Mitchell County, GA: 3.91 m/s, 6,134 kWh, payback over 100 years (25 mi)
- Worth County, GA: 4.84 m/s, 11,472 kWh, payback 56 years (25 mi)
- Brooks County, GA: 4.32 m/s, 8,289 kWh, payback 78 years (28 mi)
Sun versus wind in Colquitt County
Colquitt County gets 4.79 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,399 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 829. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.7 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.