Wind Turbine Payback in Suffolk County, MA
Wind turbine payback in Suffolk 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 Suffolk County, MA averages 3.87 m/s (8.7 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 5,942 kWh a year, worth $1,794 at MA's 30.19¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 56 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Suffolk County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Suffolk County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 5.6 m/s at the hub against 3.87 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,113 kWh a year here against the turbine's 594, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 84¢/kWh, 2.8 times what MA pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 5.6 m/s instead of 3.87. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MA
Suffolk County is the 2,157th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in MA is Barnstable County at 8.21 m/s, payback 9 years.
Month by month in Suffolk County
March is the strongest month here, at 4.62 m/s and about 855 kWh. July is the weakest, 3.06 m/s and 237 kWh, so the best month makes 3.6 times the worst. November to March brings in 60% of the year's output in Suffolk County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.58 m/s | 834 kWh | $252 |
| February | 4.74 m/s | 828 kWh | $250 |
| March | 4.62 m/s | 855 kWh | $258 |
| April | 4.16 m/s | 608 kWh | $184 |
| May | 3.53 m/s | 379 kWh | $114 |
| June | 3.19 m/s | 262 kWh | $79 |
| July | 3.06 m/s | 237 kWh | $72 |
| August | 3.07 m/s | 239 kWh | $72 |
| September | 3.33 m/s | 302 kWh | $91 |
| October | 3.86 m/s | 502 kWh | $152 |
| November | 4.05 m/s | 562 kWh | $170 |
| December | 4.31 m/s | 698 kWh | $211 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Suffolk County averages 2.55 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.7 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.380, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 3,641 to 10,571 kWh a year, 190% 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 | 3,641 kWh | 91 years |
| 30 m | 3.87 m/s | 5,945 kWh | 56 years |
| 40 m | 4.32 m/s | 8,277 kWh | 40 years |
| 50 m | 4.7 m/s | 10,571 kWh | 31 years |
Counties around Suffolk County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Essex County, averages 5.53 m/s.
- Norfolk County, MA: 3.88 m/s, 5,989 kWh, payback 55 years (14 mi)
- Middlesex County, MA: 3.87 m/s, 5,942 kWh, payback 56 years (22 mi)
- Essex County, MA: 5.53 m/s, 16,254 kWh, payback 20 years (22 mi)
- Plymouth County, MA: 5.51 m/s, 16,109 kWh, payback 21 years (28 mi)
- Bristol County, MA: 5.04 m/s, 12,805 kWh, payback 26 years (41 mi)
- Providence County, RI: 3.58 m/s, 4,653 kWh, payback 74 years (43 mi)
Sun versus wind in Suffolk County
Suffolk County gets 3.81 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,113 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 594. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.9 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.