Wind Turbine Payback in Frederick County, MD
Wind turbine payback in Frederick 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 Frederick County, MD averages 4.56 m/s (10.2 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 9,702 kWh a year, worth $2,067 at MD's 21.31¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 48 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Frederick County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Frederick County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 6.5 m/s at the hub against 4.56 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,162 kWh a year here against the turbine's 970, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 52¢/kWh, 2.4 times what MD pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 6.5 m/s instead of 4.56. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MD
Frederick County is the 1,711th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in MD is Worcester County at 7.01 m/s, payback 17 years.
Month by month in Frederick County
March is the strongest month here, at 5.42 m/s and about 1,311 kWh. August is the weakest, 3.42 m/s and 340 kWh, so the best month makes 3.9 times the worst. November to March brings in 58% of the year's output in Frederick County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.37 m/s | 1,285 kWh | $274 |
| February | 5.48 m/s | 1,217 kWh | $259 |
| March | 5.42 m/s | 1,311 kWh | $279 |
| April | 5.17 m/s | 1,124 kWh | $240 |
| May | 4.30 m/s | 695 kWh | $148 |
| June | 3.87 m/s | 489 kWh | $104 |
| July | 3.48 m/s | 360 kWh | $77 |
| August | 3.42 m/s | 340 kWh | $72 |
| September | 3.90 m/s | 499 kWh | $106 |
| October | 4.51 m/s | 796 kWh | $170 |
| November | 4.85 m/s | 948 kWh | $202 |
| December | 5.02 m/s | 1,077 kWh | $230 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Frederick County averages 3.28 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.31 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.299, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 6,767 to 14,679 kWh a year, 117% 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 | 4.04 m/s | 6,767 kWh | 69 years |
| 30 m | 4.56 m/s | 9,689 kWh | 48 years |
| 40 m | 4.97 m/s | 12,314 kWh | 38 years |
| 50 m | 5.31 m/s | 14,679 kWh | 32 years |
Counties around Frederick County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Carroll County, averages 5.26 m/s.
- Carroll County, MD: 5.26 m/s, 14,327 kWh, payback 33 years (21 mi)
- Washington County, MD: 3.62 m/s, 4,820 kWh, payback 97 years (24 mi)
- Montgomery County, MD: 4.57 m/s, 9,763 kWh, payback 48 years (25 mi)
- Jefferson County, WV: 3.62 m/s, 4,820 kWh, payback over 100 years (27 mi)
- Adams County, PA: 3.99 m/s, 6,527 kWh, payback 73 years (29 mi)
- Howard County, MD: 5.26 m/s, 14,327 kWh, payback 33 years (29 mi)
Sun versus wind in Frederick County
Frederick County gets 3.98 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,162 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 970. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.2 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.