Wind Turbine Payback in Nash County, NC
Wind turbine payback in Nash 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 Nash County, NC averages 4.35 m/s (9.7 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 8,460 kWh a year, worth $1,264 at NC's 14.94¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 79 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Nash County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Nash County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.9 m/s at the hub against 4.35 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,305 kWh a year here against the turbine's 846, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 59¢/kWh, 4.0 times what NC pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.9 m/s instead of 4.35. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of NC
Nash County is the 1,852nd windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in NC is Dare County at 6.91 m/s, payback 25 years.
Month by month in Nash County
March is the strongest month here, at 5.02 m/s and about 1,078 kWh. August is the weakest, 3.38 m/s and 328 kWh, so the best month makes 3.3 times the worst. November to March brings in 52% of the year's output in Nash County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.80 m/s | 954 kWh | $143 |
| February | 4.96 m/s | 943 kWh | $141 |
| March | 5.02 m/s | 1,078 kWh | $161 |
| April | 5.06 m/s | 1,062 kWh | $159 |
| May | 4.36 m/s | 724 kWh | $108 |
| June | 3.81 m/s | 466 kWh | $70 |
| July | 3.53 m/s | 379 kWh | $57 |
| August | 3.38 m/s | 328 kWh | $49 |
| September | 3.95 m/s | 519 kWh | $78 |
| October | 4.25 m/s | 672 kWh | $100 |
| November | 4.50 m/s | 766 kWh | $114 |
| December | 4.56 m/s | 822 kWh | $123 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Nash County averages 3.04 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.13 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.325, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 5,655 to 13,421 kWh a year, 137% 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 | 3.81 m/s | 5,655 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 4.35 m/s | 8,433 kWh | 79 years |
| 40 m | 4.77 m/s | 11,025 kWh | 61 years |
| 50 m | 5.13 m/s | 13,421 kWh | 50 years |
Counties around Nash County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Wilson County, averages 5.2 m/s.
- Franklin County, NC: 4.35 m/s, 8,460 kWh, payback 79 years (19 mi)
- Wilson County, NC: 5.2 m/s, 13,907 kWh, payback 48 years (19 mi)
- Edgecombe County, NC: 4.9 m/s, 11,866 kWh, payback 56 years (22 mi)
- Halifax County, NC: 3.99 m/s, 6,527 kWh, payback over 100 years (27 mi)
- Warren County, NC: 3.49 m/s, 4,289 kWh, payback over 100 years (31 mi)
- Vance County, NC: 3.49 m/s, 4,289 kWh, payback over 100 years (36 mi)
Sun versus wind in Nash County
Nash County gets 4.47 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,305 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 846. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.5 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.