Wind Turbine Payback in Oxford County, ME
Wind turbine payback in Oxford 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 Oxford County, ME averages 3.52 m/s (7.9 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 4,408 kWh a year, worth $1,333 at ME's 30.23¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 75 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Oxford County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Oxford County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 5.6 m/s at the hub against 3.52 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,063 kWh a year here against the turbine's 441, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 113¢/kWh, 3.8 times what ME pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 5.6 m/s instead of 3.52. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of ME
Oxford County is the 2,490th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in ME is Knox County at 6.26 m/s, payback 15 years.
Month by month in Oxford County
March is the strongest month here, at 4.32 m/s and about 703 kWh. August is the weakest, 2.75 m/s and 164 kWh, so the best month makes 4.3 times the worst. November to March brings in 61% of the year's output in Oxford County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.17 m/s | 635 kWh | $192 |
| February | 4.43 m/s | 685 kWh | $207 |
| March | 4.32 m/s | 703 kWh | $213 |
| April | 3.92 m/s | 509 kWh | $154 |
| May | 3.27 m/s | 296 kWh | $89 |
| June | 2.95 m/s | 202 kWh | $61 |
| July | 2.75 m/s | 164 kWh | $50 |
| August | 2.75 m/s | 164 kWh | $50 |
| September | 2.97 m/s | 205 kWh | $62 |
| October | 3.39 m/s | 333 kWh | $101 |
| November | 3.57 m/s | 380 kWh | $115 |
| December | 3.86 m/s | 503 kWh | $152 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Oxford County averages 2.24 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.35 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.412, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 2,549 to 8,460 kWh a year, 232% 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 | 2.98 m/s | 2,549 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.52 m/s | 4,426 kWh | 75 years |
| 40 m | 3.97 m/s | 6,417 kWh | 52 years |
| 50 m | 4.35 m/s | 8,460 kWh | 39 years |
Counties around Oxford County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Franklin County, averages 3.87 m/s.
- Coos County, NH: 3.54 m/s, 4,489 kWh, payback 83 years (29 mi)
- Androscoggin County, ME: 3.65 m/s, 4,948 kWh, payback 67 years (34 mi)
- Franklin County, ME: 3.87 m/s, 5,942 kWh, payback 56 years (37 mi)
- Kennebec County, ME: 3.51 m/s, 4,368 kWh, payback 76 years (48 mi)
- Carroll County, NH: 3.51 m/s, 4,368 kWh, payback 85 years (49 mi)
- Cumberland County, ME: 3.5 m/s, 4,329 kWh, payback 76 years (51 mi)
Sun versus wind in Oxford County
Oxford County gets 3.64 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,063 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 441. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 2.4 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.