Wind Turbine Payback in Pulaski County, GA
Wind turbine payback in Pulaski 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 Pulaski County, GA averages 4.76 m/s (10.6 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 10,954 kWh a year, worth $1,696 at GA's 15.48¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 59 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Pulaski County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Pulaski County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.8 m/s at the hub against 4.76 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,358 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,095, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 46¢/kWh, 2.9 times what GA pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.8 m/s instead of 4.76. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of GA
Pulaski County is the 1,582nd windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in GA is Glynn County at 5.08 m/s, payback 49 years.
Month by month in Pulaski County
March is the strongest month here, at 5.48 m/s and about 1,350 kWh. August is the weakest, 3.69 m/s and 436 kWh, so the best month makes 3.1 times the worst. November to March brings in 55% of the year's output in Pulaski County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.42 m/s | 1,312 kWh | $203 |
| February | 5.41 m/s | 1,181 kWh | $183 |
| March | 5.48 m/s | 1,350 kWh | $209 |
| April | 5.26 m/s | 1,179 kWh | $183 |
| May | 4.60 m/s | 845 kWh | $131 |
| June | 3.95 m/s | 519 kWh | $80 |
| July | 3.72 m/s | 446 kWh | $69 |
| August | 3.69 m/s | 436 kWh | $67 |
| September | 4.48 m/s | 757 kWh | $117 |
| October | 4.82 m/s | 962 kWh | $149 |
| November | 5.17 m/s | 1,124 kWh | $174 |
| December | 5.24 m/s | 1,207 kWh | $187 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Pulaski County averages 3.54 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.47 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.270, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 8,015 to 15,821 kWh a year, 97% 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 | 4.27 m/s | 8,015 kWh | 81 years |
| 30 m | 4.77 m/s | 10,988 kWh | 59 years |
| 40 m | 5.15 m/s | 13,561 kWh | 48 years |
| 50 m | 5.47 m/s | 15,821 kWh | 41 years |
Counties around Pulaski County
None of the 6 closest counties is windier than Pulaski County.
- Bleckley County, GA: 3.94 m/s, 6,280 kWh, payback over 100 years (16 mi)
- Houston County, GA: 4.01 m/s, 6,628 kWh, payback 98 years (18 mi)
- Dodge County, GA: 4.54 m/s, 9,580 kWh, payback 67 years (19 mi)
- Wilcox County, GA: 4.76 m/s, 10,954 kWh, payback 59 years (19 mi)
- Dooly County, GA: 4.76 m/s, 10,954 kWh, payback 59 years (20 mi)
- Crisp County, GA: 4.76 m/s, 10,954 kWh, payback 59 years (27 mi)
Sun versus wind in Pulaski County
Pulaski County gets 4.65 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,358 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,095. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.2 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.