Wind Turbine Payback in Harford County, MD
Wind turbine payback in Harford 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 Harford County, MD averages 4.83 m/s (10.8 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 11,407 kWh a year, worth $2,431 at MD's 21.31¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 41 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Harford County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Harford County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 6.5 m/s at the hub against 4.83 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,180 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,141, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 44¢/kWh, 2.1 times what MD pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 6.5 m/s instead of 4.83. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MD
Harford County is the 1,542nd 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 Harford County
March is the strongest month here, at 5.69 m/s and about 1,482 kWh. August is the weakest, 3.61 m/s and 407 kWh, so the best month makes 3.6 times the worst. November to March brings in 57% of the year's output in Harford County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.65 m/s | 1,455 kWh | $310 |
| February | 5.76 m/s | 1,378 kWh | $294 |
| March | 5.69 m/s | 1,482 kWh | $316 |
| April | 5.43 m/s | 1,279 kWh | $273 |
| May | 4.52 m/s | 806 kWh | $172 |
| June | 4.13 m/s | 594 kWh | $127 |
| July | 3.70 m/s | 439 kWh | $94 |
| August | 3.61 m/s | 407 kWh | $87 |
| September | 4.11 m/s | 586 kWh | $125 |
| October | 4.83 m/s | 967 kWh | $206 |
| November | 5.17 m/s | 1,128 kWh | $240 |
| December | 5.37 m/s | 1,280 kWh | $273 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Harford County averages 3.55 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.57 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 8,230 to 16,544 kWh a year, 101% 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 | 4.31 m/s | 8,230 kWh | 57 years |
| 30 m | 4.83 m/s | 11,391 kWh | 41 years |
| 40 m | 5.23 m/s | 14,135 kWh | 33 years |
| 50 m | 5.57 m/s | 16,544 kWh | 28 years |
Counties around Harford County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Kent County, averages 5.49 m/s.
- Baltimore County, MD: 5.26 m/s, 14,327 kWh, payback 33 years (18 mi)
- Cecil County, MD: 4.83 m/s, 11,407 kWh, payback 41 years (19 mi)
- Kent County, MD: 5.49 m/s, 15,965 kWh, payback 29 years (22 mi)
- Baltimore city, MD: 5.26 m/s, 14,327 kWh, payback 33 years (23 mi)
- Lancaster County, PA: 4.14 m/s, 7,301 kWh, payback 65 years (35 mi)
- York County, PA: 4.25 m/s, 7,897 kWh, payback 60 years (35 mi)
Sun versus wind in Harford County
Harford County gets 4.04 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,180 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,141. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.0 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.