Wind Turbine Payback in Waldo County, ME
Wind turbine payback in Waldo 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 Waldo County, ME averages 3.48 m/s (7.8 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 4,250 kWh a year, worth $1,285 at ME's 30.23¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 78 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Waldo County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Waldo County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 5.6 m/s at the hub against 3.48 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,080 kWh a year here against the turbine's 425, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 118¢/kWh, 3.9 times what ME pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 5.6 m/s instead of 3.48. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of ME
Waldo County is the 2,536th 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 Waldo County
March is the strongest month here, at 4.24 m/s and about 667 kWh. July is the weakest, 2.71 m/s and 155 kWh, so the best month makes 4.3 times the worst. November to March brings in 59% of the year's output in Waldo County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.97 m/s | 545 kWh | $165 |
| February | 4.23 m/s | 595 kWh | $180 |
| March | 4.24 m/s | 667 kWh | $202 |
| April | 3.81 m/s | 467 kWh | $141 |
| May | 3.18 m/s | 269 kWh | $81 |
| June | 2.90 m/s | 190 kWh | $57 |
| July | 2.71 m/s | 155 kWh | $47 |
| August | 2.78 m/s | 171 kWh | $52 |
| September | 3.08 m/s | 234 kWh | $71 |
| October | 3.51 m/s | 371 kWh | $112 |
| November | 3.61 m/s | 394 kWh | $119 |
| December | 3.74 m/s | 455 kWh | $138 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Waldo County averages 2.18 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.32 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.425, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 2,389 to 8,289 kWh a year, 247% 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 | 2.93 m/s | 2,389 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.48 m/s | 4,238 kWh | 78 years |
| 40 m | 3.93 m/s | 6,227 kWh | 53 years |
| 50 m | 4.32 m/s | 8,289 kWh | 40 years |
Counties around Waldo County
6 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Knox County, averages 6.26 m/s.
- Knox County, ME: 6.26 m/s, 21,632 kWh, payback 15 years (30 mi)
- Kennebec County, ME: 3.51 m/s, 4,368 kWh, payback 76 years (32 mi)
- Hancock County, ME: 4.76 m/s, 10,954 kWh, payback 30 years (37 mi)
- Lincoln County, ME: 4.86 m/s, 11,603 kWh, payback 29 years (39 mi)
- Sagadahoc County, ME: 3.65 m/s, 4,948 kWh, payback 67 years (53 mi)
- Androscoggin County, ME: 3.65 m/s, 4,948 kWh, payback 67 years (58 mi)
Sun versus wind in Waldo County
Waldo County gets 3.7 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,080 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 425. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 2.5 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.