Wind Turbine Payback in York County, SC
Wind turbine payback in York 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 York County, SC averages 3.65 m/s (8.2 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 4,948 kWh a year, worth $787 at SC's 15.9¢/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 York County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in York County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.6 m/s at the hub against 3.65 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,326 kWh a year here against the turbine's 495, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 101¢/kWh, 6.4 times what SC pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.6 m/s instead of 3.65. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of SC
York County is the 2,332nd windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in SC is Beaufort County at 5.71 m/s, payback 36 years.
Month by month in York County
April is the strongest month here, at 4.30 m/s and about 673 kWh. August is the weakest, 2.77 m/s and 167 kWh, so the best month makes 4.0 times the worst. November to March brings in 53% of the year's output in York County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.01 m/s | 563 kWh | $90 |
| February | 4.20 m/s | 586 kWh | $93 |
| March | 4.25 m/s | 671 kWh | $107 |
| April | 4.30 m/s | 673 kWh | $107 |
| May | 3.66 m/s | 424 kWh | $67 |
| June | 3.14 m/s | 249 kWh | $40 |
| July | 2.89 m/s | 194 kWh | $31 |
| August | 2.77 m/s | 167 kWh | $27 |
| September | 3.39 m/s | 322 kWh | $51 |
| October | 3.63 m/s | 412 kWh | $66 |
| November | 3.80 m/s | 462 kWh | $73 |
| December | 3.81 m/s | 481 kWh | $76 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in York County averages 2.46 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.39 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.360, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 3,088 to 8,690 kWh a year, 181% 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 | 3.16 m/s | 3,088 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.65 m/s | 4,959 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 4.05 m/s | 6,837 kWh | 92 years |
| 50 m | 4.39 m/s | 8,690 kWh | 72 years |
Counties around York County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Gaston County, averages 4.22 m/s.
- Chester County, SC: 3.02 m/s, 2,661 kWh, payback over 100 years (19 mi)
- Gaston County, NC: 4.22 m/s, 7,732 kWh, payback 87 years (22 mi)
- Cherokee County, SC: 3.7 m/s, 5,164 kWh, payback over 100 years (25 mi)
- Mecklenburg County, NC: 3.43 m/s, 4,056 kWh, payback over 100 years (27 mi)
- Union County, SC: 3.16 m/s, 3,099 kWh, payback over 100 years (31 mi)
- Cleveland County, NC: 4.22 m/s, 7,732 kWh, payback 87 years (33 mi)
Sun versus wind in York County
York County gets 4.54 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,326 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 495. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 2.7 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.