Wind Turbine Payback in Middlesex County, NJ
Wind turbine payback in Middlesex 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 Middlesex County, NJ averages 4.44 m/s (9.9 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 8,982 kWh a year, worth $2,164 at NJ's 24.09¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 46 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Middlesex County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Middlesex County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 6.1 m/s at the hub against 4.44 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,145 kWh a year here against the turbine's 898, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 56¢/kWh, 2.3 times what NJ pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 6.1 m/s instead of 4.44. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of NJ
Middlesex County is the 1,788th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in NJ is Cape May County at 6.6 m/s, payback 17 years.
Month by month in Middlesex County
March is the strongest month here, at 5.19 m/s and about 1,178 kWh. August is the weakest, 3.44 m/s and 347 kWh, so the best month makes 3.4 times the worst. November to March brings in 58% of the year's output in Middlesex County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.15 m/s | 1,153 kWh | $278 |
| February | 5.30 m/s | 1,123 kWh | $271 |
| March | 5.19 m/s | 1,178 kWh | $284 |
| April | 4.81 m/s | 928 kWh | $224 |
| May | 4.08 m/s | 594 kWh | $143 |
| June | 3.73 m/s | 437 kWh | $105 |
| July | 3.51 m/s | 372 kWh | $90 |
| August | 3.44 m/s | 347 kWh | $84 |
| September | 3.85 m/s | 482 kWh | $116 |
| October | 4.52 m/s | 801 kWh | $193 |
| November | 4.74 m/s | 888 kWh | $214 |
| December | 4.97 m/s | 1,045 kWh | $252 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Middlesex County averages 3.12 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.23 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.321, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 6,072 to 14,116 kWh a year, 132% 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 | 3.9 m/s | 6,072 kWh | 68 years |
| 30 m | 4.44 m/s | 8,977 kWh | 46 years |
| 40 m | 4.87 m/s | 11,658 kWh | 36 years |
| 50 m | 5.23 m/s | 14,116 kWh | 29 years |
Counties around Middlesex County
None of the 6 closest counties is windier than Middlesex County.
- Somerset County, NJ: 4.44 m/s, 8,982 kWh, payback 46 years (14 mi)
- Union County, NJ: 4.44 m/s, 8,982 kWh, payback 46 years (16 mi)
- Richmond County, NY: 4.44 m/s, 8,982 kWh, payback 38 years (16 mi)
- Monmouth County, NJ: 4.44 m/s, 8,982 kWh, payback 46 years (17 mi)
- Mercer County, NJ: 3.54 m/s, 4,489 kWh, payback 93 years (19 mi)
- Essex County, NJ: 3.66 m/s, 4,991 kWh, payback 83 years (25 mi)
Sun versus wind in Middlesex County
Middlesex County gets 3.92 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,145 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 898. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.3 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.