Wind Turbine Payback in Essex County, MA
Wind turbine payback in Essex 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 Essex County, MA averages 5.53 m/s (12.4 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 16,254 kWh a year, worth $4,907 at MA's 30.19¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 20 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Essex County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Essex County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 5.6 m/s at the hub against 5.53 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,115 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,625, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 31¢/kWh, 1.0 times what MA pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 5.6 m/s instead of 5.53. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MA
Essex County is the 1,195th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in MA is Barnstable County at 8.21 m/s, payback 9 years.
Month by month in Essex County
January is the strongest month here, at 6.73 m/s and about 2,131 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.23 m/s and 661 kWh, so the best month makes 3.2 times the worst. November to March brings in 58% of the year's output in Essex County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.73 m/s | 2,131 kWh | $643 |
| February | 6.74 m/s | 1,929 kWh | $582 |
| March | 6.48 m/s | 1,978 kWh | $597 |
| April | 5.73 m/s | 1,457 kWh | $440 |
| May | 4.98 m/s | 1,054 kWh | $318 |
| June | 4.52 m/s | 777 kWh | $235 |
| July | 4.27 m/s | 678 kWh | $205 |
| August | 4.23 m/s | 661 kWh | $200 |
| September | 4.72 m/s | 878 kWh | $265 |
| October | 5.61 m/s | 1,427 kWh | $431 |
| November | 6.02 m/s | 1,633 kWh | $493 |
| December | 6.49 m/s | 1,984 kWh | $599 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Essex County averages 4.47 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.11 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.194, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 13,318 to 20,520 kWh a year, 54% 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 | 5.11 m/s | 13,318 kWh | 25 years |
| 30 m | 5.53 m/s | 16,279 kWh | 20 years |
| 40 m | 5.85 m/s | 18,603 kWh | 18 years |
| 50 m | 6.11 m/s | 20,520 kWh | 16 years |
Counties around Essex County
None of the 6 closest counties is windier than Essex County.
- Suffolk County, MA: 3.87 m/s, 5,942 kWh, payback 56 years (22 mi)
- Rockingham County, NH: 3.58 m/s, 4,653 kWh, payback 80 years (27 mi)
- Middlesex County, MA: 3.87 m/s, 5,942 kWh, payback 56 years (29 mi)
- Norfolk County, MA: 3.88 m/s, 5,989 kWh, payback 55 years (36 mi)
- Plymouth County, MA: 5.51 m/s, 16,109 kWh, payback 21 years (46 mi)
- Strafford County, NH: 3.58 m/s, 4,653 kWh, payback 80 years (46 mi)
Sun versus wind in Essex County
Essex County gets 3.82 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,115 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,625. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.5 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.