Wind Turbine Payback in Ocean County, NJ
Wind turbine payback in Ocean 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 Ocean County, NJ averages 5.47 m/s (12.2 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 15,821 kWh a year, worth $3,811 at NJ's 24.09¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 26 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Ocean County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Ocean County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 6.1 m/s at the hub against 5.47 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,186 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,582, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 32¢/kWh, 1.3 times what NJ pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 6.1 m/s instead of 5.47. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of NJ
Ocean County is the 1,240th 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 Ocean County
March is the strongest month here, at 6.29 m/s and about 1,856 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.23 m/s and 664 kWh, so the best month makes 2.8 times the worst. November to March brings in 54% of the year's output in Ocean County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.25 m/s | 1,829 kWh | $441 |
| February | 6.38 m/s | 1,727 kWh | $416 |
| March | 6.29 m/s | 1,856 kWh | $447 |
| April | 6.00 m/s | 1,618 kWh | $390 |
| May | 5.12 m/s | 1,135 kWh | $273 |
| June | 4.67 m/s | 853 kWh | $205 |
| July | 4.37 m/s | 727 kWh | $175 |
| August | 4.23 m/s | 664 kWh | $160 |
| September | 4.78 m/s | 908 kWh | $219 |
| October | 5.63 m/s | 1,445 kWh | $348 |
| November | 5.87 m/s | 1,543 kWh | $372 |
| December | 6.09 m/s | 1,728 kWh | $416 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Ocean County averages 4.21 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.17 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.237, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 12,303 to 20,965 kWh a year, 70% 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 | 4.97 m/s | 12,303 kWh | 34 years |
| 30 m | 5.47 m/s | 15,795 kWh | 26 years |
| 40 m | 5.85 m/s | 18,611 kWh | 22 years |
| 50 m | 6.17 m/s | 20,965 kWh | 20 years |
Counties around Ocean County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Atlantic County, averages 6.47 m/s.
- Burlington County, NJ: 5.47 m/s, 15,821 kWh, payback 26 years (21 mi)
- Monmouth County, NJ: 4.44 m/s, 8,982 kWh, payback 46 years (30 mi)
- Atlantic County, NJ: 6.47 m/s, 23,186 kWh, payback 18 years (34 mi)
- Mercer County, NJ: 3.54 m/s, 4,489 kWh, payback 93 years (37 mi)
- Camden County, NJ: 4.74 m/s, 10,826 kWh, payback 38 years (38 mi)
- Middlesex County, NJ: 4.44 m/s, 8,982 kWh, payback 46 years (40 mi)
Sun versus wind in Ocean County
Ocean County gets 4.06 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,186 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,582. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.3 times. 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.