Wind Turbine Payback in Hancock County, ME
Wind turbine payback in Hancock 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 Hancock County, ME averages 4.76 m/s (10.6 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 10,954 kWh a year, worth $3,311 at ME's 30.23¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 30 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Hancock County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Hancock County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 5.6 m/s at the hub against 4.76 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,069 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,095, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 46¢/kWh, 1.5 times what ME pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 5.6 m/s instead of 4.76. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of ME
Hancock County is the 1,582nd windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in ME is Knox County at 6.26 m/s, payback 15 years.
Month by month in Hancock County
March is the strongest month here, at 5.58 m/s and about 1,411 kWh. July is the weakest, 3.66 m/s and 422 kWh, so the best month makes 3.3 times the worst. November to March brings in 58% of the year's output in Hancock County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.55 m/s | 1,395 kWh | $422 |
| February | 5.66 m/s | 1,319 kWh | $399 |
| March | 5.58 m/s | 1,411 kWh | $427 |
| April | 4.99 m/s | 1,025 kWh | $310 |
| May | 4.24 m/s | 668 kWh | $202 |
| June | 3.94 m/s | 515 kWh | $156 |
| July | 3.66 m/s | 422 kWh | $128 |
| August | 3.71 m/s | 442 kWh | $134 |
| September | 4.22 m/s | 635 kWh | $192 |
| October | 4.95 m/s | 1,035 kWh | $313 |
| November | 5.27 m/s | 1,185 kWh | $358 |
| December | 5.50 m/s | 1,363 kWh | $412 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Hancock County averages 3.61 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.42 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.253, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 8,168 to 15,462 kWh a year, 89% 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 | 4.3 m/s | 8,168 kWh | 41 years |
| 30 m | 4.76 m/s | 10,972 kWh | 30 years |
| 40 m | 5.12 m/s | 13,370 kWh | 25 years |
| 50 m | 5.42 m/s | 15,462 kWh | 21 years |
Counties around Hancock County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Knox County, averages 6.26 m/s.
- Waldo County, ME: 3.48 m/s, 4,250 kWh, payback 78 years (37 mi)
- Washington County, ME: 4.11 m/s, 7,143 kWh, payback 46 years (47 mi)
- Knox County, ME: 6.26 m/s, 21,632 kWh, payback 15 years (49 mi)
- Penobscot County, ME: 3.57 m/s, 4,612 kWh, payback 72 years (60 mi)
- Lincoln County, ME: 4.86 m/s, 11,603 kWh, payback 29 years (69 mi)
- Kennebec County, ME: 3.51 m/s, 4,368 kWh, payback 76 years (70 mi)
Sun versus wind in Hancock County
Hancock County gets 3.66 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,069 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,095. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.0 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.