Wind Turbine Payback in Georgetown County, SC
Wind turbine payback in Georgetown 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 Georgetown County, SC averages 4.38 m/s (9.8 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 8,632 kWh a year, worth $1,373 at SC's 15.9¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 73 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Georgetown County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Georgetown County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.6 m/s at the hub against 4.38 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,349 kWh a year here against the turbine's 863, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 58¢/kWh, 3.6 times what SC pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.6 m/s instead of 4.38. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of SC
Georgetown County is the 1,837th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in SC is Beaufort County at 5.71 m/s, payback 36 years.
Month by month in Georgetown County
March is the strongest month here, at 4.87 m/s and about 992 kWh. August is the weakest, 3.57 m/s and 392 kWh, so the best month makes 2.5 times the worst. November to March brings in 50% of the year's output in Georgetown County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.75 m/s | 925 kWh | $147 |
| February | 4.85 m/s | 887 kWh | $141 |
| March | 4.87 m/s | 992 kWh | $158 |
| April | 4.92 m/s | 988 kWh | $157 |
| May | 4.39 m/s | 736 kWh | $117 |
| June | 3.87 m/s | 490 kWh | $78 |
| July | 3.79 m/s | 472 kWh | $75 |
| August | 3.57 m/s | 392 kWh | $62 |
| September | 4.21 m/s | 632 kWh | $100 |
| October | 4.31 m/s | 698 kWh | $111 |
| November | 4.50 m/s | 767 kWh | $122 |
| December | 4.56 m/s | 823 kWh | $131 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Georgetown County averages 3.22 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.05 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.280, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 6,120 to 12,873 kWh a year, 110% 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 | 3.91 m/s | 6,120 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 4.38 m/s | 8,615 kWh | 73 years |
| 40 m | 4.74 m/s | 10,852 kWh | 58 years |
| 50 m | 5.05 m/s | 12,873 kWh | 49 years |
Counties around Georgetown County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Horry County, averages 5.29 m/s.
- Williamsburg County, SC: 4.34 m/s, 8,403 kWh, payback 75 years (28 mi)
- Horry County, SC: 5.29 m/s, 14,538 kWh, payback 43 years (39 mi)
- Berkeley County, SC: 4.13 m/s, 7,248 kWh, payback 87 years (41 mi)
- Marion County, SC: 4.95 m/s, 12,199 kWh, payback 52 years (46 mi)
- Florence County, SC: 4.98 m/s, 12,400 kWh, payback 51 years (48 mi)
- Clarendon County, SC: 4.34 m/s, 8,403 kWh, payback 75 years (56 mi)
Sun versus wind in Georgetown County
Georgetown County gets 4.62 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,349 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 863. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.6 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.