Wind Turbine Payback in Hale County, AL
Wind turbine payback in Hale 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 Hale County, AL averages 2.97 m/s (6.6 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 2,513 kWh a year, worth $415 at AL's 16.51¢/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 Hale County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Hale County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.5 m/s at the hub against 2.97 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,349 kWh a year here against the turbine's 251, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 199¢/kWh, 12.1 times what AL pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.5 m/s instead of 2.97. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of AL
Hale County is the 3,068th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in AL is Mobile County at 4.72 m/s, payback 57 years.
Month by month in Hale County
March is the strongest month here, at 3.44 m/s and about 349 kWh. July is the weakest, 2.25 m/s and 76 kWh, so the best month makes 4.6 times the worst. November to March brings in 56% of the year's output in Hale County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.30 m/s | 304 kWh | $50 |
| February | 3.41 m/s | 306 kWh | $51 |
| March | 3.44 m/s | 349 kWh | $58 |
| April | 3.40 m/s | 325 kWh | $54 |
| May | 2.86 m/s | 186 kWh | $31 |
| June | 2.44 m/s | 101 kWh | $17 |
| July | 2.25 m/s | 76 kWh | $13 |
| August | 2.35 m/s | 90 kWh | $15 |
| September | 2.77 m/s | 162 kWh | $27 |
| October | 3.03 m/s | 228 kWh | $38 |
| November | 3.19 m/s | 264 kWh | $44 |
| December | 3.22 m/s | 279 kWh | $46 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Hale County averages 1.75 m/s; at 50 m it is 3.79 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.480, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 1,233 to 5,568 kWh a year, 352% 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 | 2.44 m/s | 1,233 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 2.97 m/s | 2,501 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 3.41 m/s | 3,961 kWh | over 100 years |
| 50 m | 3.79 m/s | 5,568 kWh | over 100 years |
Counties around Hale County
5 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Greene County, averages 3.2 m/s.
- Perry County, AL: 3.05 m/s, 2,751 kWh, payback over 100 years (21 mi)
- Greene County, AL: 3.2 m/s, 3,232 kWh, payback over 100 years (21 mi)
- Bibb County, AL: 3.13 m/s, 3,002 kWh, payback over 100 years (34 mi)
- Sumter County, AL: 3.17 m/s, 3,132 kWh, payback over 100 years (35 mi)
- Marengo County, AL: 2.94 m/s, 2,427 kWh, payback over 100 years (36 mi)
- Tuscaloosa County, AL: 2.99 m/s, 2,571 kWh, payback over 100 years (38 mi)
Sun versus wind in Hale County
Hale 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 251. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 5.4 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.