Wind Turbine Payback in Norfolk County, MA
Wind turbine payback in Norfolk 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 Norfolk County, MA averages 3.88 m/s (8.7 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 5,989 kWh a year, worth $1,808 at MA's 30.19¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 55 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Norfolk County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Norfolk County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 5.6 m/s at the hub against 3.88 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,113 kWh a year here against the turbine's 599, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 83¢/kWh, 2.8 times what MA pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 5.6 m/s instead of 3.88. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MA
Norfolk County is the 2,149th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in MA is Barnstable County at 8.21 m/s, payback 9 years.
Month by month in Norfolk County
March is the strongest month here, at 4.59 m/s and about 839 kWh. July is the weakest, 3.13 m/s and 256 kWh, so the best month makes 3.3 times the worst. November to March brings in 59% of the year's output in Norfolk County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.50 m/s | 793 kWh | $239 |
| February | 4.65 m/s | 785 kWh | $237 |
| March | 4.59 m/s | 839 kWh | $253 |
| April | 4.15 m/s | 604 kWh | $182 |
| May | 3.56 m/s | 388 kWh | $117 |
| June | 3.22 m/s | 270 kWh | $82 |
| July | 3.13 m/s | 256 kWh | $77 |
| August | 3.14 m/s | 258 kWh | $78 |
| September | 3.38 m/s | 318 kWh | $96 |
| October | 3.89 m/s | 514 kWh | $155 |
| November | 4.10 m/s | 582 kWh | $176 |
| December | 4.30 m/s | 692 kWh | $209 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Norfolk County averages 2.52 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.74 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.393, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 3,600 to 10,826 kWh a year, 201% 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 | 3.31 m/s | 3,600 kWh | 92 years |
| 30 m | 3.88 m/s | 5,979 kWh | 55 years |
| 40 m | 4.34 m/s | 8,414 kWh | 39 years |
| 50 m | 4.74 m/s | 10,826 kWh | 31 years |
Counties around Norfolk County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Plymouth County, averages 5.51 m/s.
- Suffolk County, MA: 3.87 m/s, 5,942 kWh, payback 56 years (14 mi)
- Middlesex County, MA: 3.87 m/s, 5,942 kWh, payback 56 years (24 mi)
- Plymouth County, MA: 5.51 m/s, 16,109 kWh, payback 21 years (26 mi)
- Providence County, RI: 3.58 m/s, 4,653 kWh, payback 74 years (29 mi)
- Bristol County, MA: 5.04 m/s, 12,805 kWh, payback 26 years (30 mi)
- Bristol County, RI: 5.04 m/s, 12,805 kWh, payback 27 years (33 mi)
Sun versus wind in Norfolk County
Norfolk County gets 3.81 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,113 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 599. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.9 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.