Wind Turbine Payback in Danville city, VA
Wind turbine payback in Danville city
No. The turbine wears out before it pays for itself.
At 30 m, the height a home turbine tower usually reaches, the wind in Danville city, VA averages 3.86 m/s (8.6 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 5,894 kWh a year, worth $999 at VA's 16.95¢/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 Danville city
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Danville city unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.3 m/s at the hub against 3.86 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,267 kWh a year here against the turbine's 589, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 85¢/kWh, 5.0 times what VA pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.3 m/s instead of 3.86. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of VA
Danville city is the 2,167th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in VA is Northampton County at 7.01 m/s, payback 22 years.
Month by month in Danville city
March is the strongest month here, at 4.56 m/s and about 825 kWh. August is the weakest, 2.93 m/s and 204 kWh, so the best month makes 4.0 times the worst. November to March brings in 56% of the year's output in Danville city.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.41 m/s | 748 kWh | $127 |
| February | 4.56 m/s | 745 kWh | $126 |
| March | 4.56 m/s | 825 kWh | $140 |
| April | 4.54 m/s | 786 kWh | $133 |
| May | 3.78 m/s | 469 kWh | $79 |
| June | 3.28 m/s | 290 kWh | $49 |
| July | 3.02 m/s | 225 kWh | $38 |
| August | 2.93 m/s | 204 kWh | $35 |
| September | 3.37 m/s | 315 kWh | $53 |
| October | 3.76 m/s | 460 kWh | $78 |
| November | 3.98 m/s | 533 kWh | $90 |
| December | 4.10 m/s | 602 kWh | $102 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Danville city averages 2.65 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.59 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.341, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 3,787 to 9,885 kWh a year, 161% 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 | 3.36 m/s | 3,787 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.86 m/s | 5,877 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 4.25 m/s | 7,918 kWh | 75 years |
| 50 m | 4.59 m/s | 9,885 kWh | 60 years |
Counties around Danville city
None of the 6 closest counties is windier than Danville city.
- Caswell County, NC: 3.86 m/s, 5,894 kWh, payback over 100 years (14 mi)
- Pittsylvania County, VA: 3.15 m/s, 3,067 kWh, payback over 100 years (16 mi)
- Rockingham County, NC: 3.73 m/s, 5,297 kWh, payback over 100 years (25 mi)
- Martinsville city, VA: 3.73 m/s, 5,297 kWh, payback over 100 years (26 mi)
- Person County, NC: 3.75 m/s, 5,387 kWh, payback over 100 years (28 mi)
- Halifax County, VA: 3.32 m/s, 3,648 kWh, payback over 100 years (29 mi)
Sun versus wind in Danville city
Danville city gets 4.34 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,267 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 589. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 2.2 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.