Wind Turbine Payback in Pender County, NC
Wind turbine payback in Pender 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 Pender County, NC averages 3.6 m/s (8.1 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 4,736 kWh a year, worth $708 at NC's 14.94¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of over 100 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Pender County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Pender County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.9 m/s at the hub against 3.6 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,343 kWh a year here against the turbine's 474, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 106¢/kWh, 7.1 times what NC pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.9 m/s instead of 3.6. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of NC
Pender County is the 2,402nd 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 Pender County
April is the strongest month here, at 4.13 m/s and about 594 kWh. August is the weakest, 2.96 m/s and 212 kWh, so the best month makes 2.8 times the worst. November to March brings in 49% of the year's output in Pender County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.79 m/s | 474 kWh | $71 |
| February | 3.98 m/s | 495 kWh | $74 |
| March | 4.04 m/s | 575 kWh | $86 |
| April | 4.13 m/s | 594 kWh | $89 |
| May | 3.67 m/s | 428 kWh | $64 |
| June | 3.22 m/s | 271 kWh | $40 |
| July | 3.15 m/s | 260 kWh | $39 |
| August | 2.96 m/s | 212 kWh | $32 |
| September | 3.44 m/s | 337 kWh | $50 |
| October | 3.55 m/s | 386 kWh | $58 |
| November | 3.68 m/s | 418 kWh | $62 |
| December | 3.68 m/s | 431 kWh | $64 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Pender County averages 2.21 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.52 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.445, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 2,620 to 9,459 kWh a year, 261% 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 | 3.01 m/s | 2,620 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.6 m/s | 4,740 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 4.09 m/s | 7,052 kWh | 95 years |
| 50 m | 4.52 m/s | 9,459 kWh | 71 years |
Counties around Pender County
6 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Duplin County, averages 4.9 m/s.
- New Hanover County, NC: 4.73 m/s, 10,762 kWh, payback 62 years (23 mi)
- Onslow County, NC: 4.79 m/s, 11,147 kWh, payback 60 years (28 mi)
- Duplin County, NC: 4.9 m/s, 11,866 kWh, payback 56 years (29 mi)
- Bladen County, NC: 4.42 m/s, 8,865 kWh, payback 76 years (37 mi)
- Brunswick County, NC: 4.73 m/s, 10,762 kWh, payback 62 years (38 mi)
- Sampson County, NC: 4.9 m/s, 11,866 kWh, payback 56 years (43 mi)
Sun versus wind in Pender County
Pender County gets 4.6 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,343 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 474. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 2.8 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.