Wind Turbine Payback in Houston County, GA
Wind turbine payback in Houston 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 Houston County, GA averages 4.01 m/s (9 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 6,628 kWh a year, worth $1,026 at GA's 15.48¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 98 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Houston County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Houston County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.8 m/s at the hub against 4.01 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,358 kWh a year here against the turbine's 663, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 75¢/kWh, 4.9 times what GA pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.8 m/s instead of 4.01. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of GA
Houston County is the 2,052nd windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in GA is Glynn County at 5.08 m/s, payback 49 years.
Month by month in Houston County
March is the strongest month here, at 4.64 m/s and about 867 kWh. August is the weakest, 3.12 m/s and 252 kWh, so the best month makes 3.4 times the worst. November to March brings in 55% of the year's output in Houston County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.58 m/s | 835 kWh | $129 |
| February | 4.56 m/s | 743 kWh | $115 |
| March | 4.64 m/s | 867 kWh | $134 |
| April | 4.50 m/s | 766 kWh | $119 |
| May | 3.92 m/s | 525 kWh | $81 |
| June | 3.36 m/s | 311 kWh | $48 |
| July | 3.16 m/s | 264 kWh | $41 |
| August | 3.12 m/s | 252 kWh | $39 |
| September | 3.72 m/s | 433 kWh | $67 |
| October | 4.00 m/s | 560 kWh | $87 |
| November | 4.29 m/s | 669 kWh | $104 |
| December | 4.37 m/s | 728 kWh | $113 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Houston County averages 2.83 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.72 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.318, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 4,436 to 10,698 kWh a year, 141% 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 | 3.53 m/s | 4,436 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 4.01 m/s | 6,639 kWh | 97 years |
| 40 m | 4.4 m/s | 8,729 kWh | 74 years |
| 50 m | 4.72 m/s | 10,698 kWh | 60 years |
Counties around Houston County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Pulaski County, averages 4.76 m/s.
- Peach County, GA: 4.01 m/s, 6,628 kWh, payback 98 years (13 mi)
- Pulaski County, GA: 4.76 m/s, 10,954 kWh, payback 59 years (18 mi)
- Bleckley County, GA: 3.94 m/s, 6,280 kWh, payback over 100 years (19 mi)
- Twiggs County, GA: 3.94 m/s, 6,280 kWh, payback over 100 years (20 mi)
- Dooly County, GA: 4.76 m/s, 10,954 kWh, payback 59 years (23 mi)
- Macon County, GA: 4.01 m/s, 6,628 kWh, payback 98 years (24 mi)
Sun versus wind in Houston County
Houston County gets 4.65 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,358 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 663. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 2.0 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.