Wind Turbine Payback in Piscataquis County, ME
Wind turbine payback in Piscataquis 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 Piscataquis County, ME averages 3.89 m/s (8.7 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 6,037 kWh a year, worth $1,825 at ME's 30.23¢/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 Piscataquis County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Piscataquis County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 5.6 m/s at the hub against 3.89 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,034 kWh a year here against the turbine's 604, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 83¢/kWh, 2.7 times what ME pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 5.6 m/s instead of 3.89. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of ME
Piscataquis County is the 2,141st 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 Piscataquis County
March is the strongest month here, at 4.62 m/s and about 854 kWh. July is the weakest, 3.18 m/s and 269 kWh, so the best month makes 3.2 times the worst. November to March brings in 56% of the year's output in Piscataquis County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.36 m/s | 725 kWh | $219 |
| February | 4.67 m/s | 795 kWh | $240 |
| March | 4.62 m/s | 854 kWh | $258 |
| April | 4.34 m/s | 690 kWh | $209 |
| May | 3.68 m/s | 432 kWh | $131 |
| June | 3.40 m/s | 325 kWh | $98 |
| July | 3.18 m/s | 269 kWh | $81 |
| August | 3.19 m/s | 272 kWh | $82 |
| September | 3.44 m/s | 338 kWh | $102 |
| October | 3.79 m/s | 473 kWh | $143 |
| November | 3.95 m/s | 522 kWh | $158 |
| December | 4.10 m/s | 603 kWh | $182 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Piscataquis County averages 2.54 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.74 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.388, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 3,655 to 10,826 kWh a year, 196% 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 | 3.32 m/s | 3,655 kWh | 91 years |
| 30 m | 3.89 m/s | 6,027 kWh | 55 years |
| 40 m | 4.35 m/s | 8,442 kWh | 39 years |
| 50 m | 4.74 m/s | 10,826 kWh | 31 years |
Counties around Piscataquis County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Washington County, averages 4.11 m/s.
- Penobscot County, ME: 3.57 m/s, 4,612 kWh, payback 72 years (41 mi)
- Somerset County, ME: 3.92 m/s, 6,182 kWh, payback 54 years (50 mi)
- Aroostook County, ME: 3.9 m/s, 6,085 kWh, payback 54 years (60 mi)
- Franklin County, ME: 3.87 m/s, 5,942 kWh, payback 56 years (91 mi)
- Washington County, ME: 4.11 m/s, 7,143 kWh, payback 46 years (98 mi)
- Waldo County, ME: 3.48 m/s, 4,250 kWh, payback 78 years (100 mi)
Sun versus wind in Piscataquis County
Piscataquis County gets 3.54 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,034 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 604. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.7 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.