Wind Turbine Payback in Chautauqua County, NY
Wind turbine payback in Chautauqua 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 Chautauqua County, NY averages 5.37 m/s (12 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 15,105 kWh a year, worth $4,420 at NY's 29.26¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 23 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Chautauqua County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Chautauqua County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 5.6 m/s at the hub against 5.37 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,066 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,511, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 33¢/kWh, 1.1 times what NY pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 5.6 m/s instead of 5.37. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of NY
Chautauqua County is the 1,295th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in NY is Niagara County at 6.87 m/s, payback 13 years.
Month by month in Chautauqua County
January is the strongest month here, at 7.07 m/s and about 2,339 kWh. August is the weakest, 3.94 m/s and 533 kWh, so the best month makes 4.4 times the worst. November to March brings in 62% of the year's output in Chautauqua County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 7.07 m/s | 2,339 kWh | $684 |
| February | 6.71 m/s | 1,915 kWh | $560 |
| March | 5.93 m/s | 1,628 kWh | $476 |
| April | 5.49 m/s | 1,313 kWh | $384 |
| May | 4.56 m/s | 826 kWh | $242 |
| June | 4.23 m/s | 642 kWh | $188 |
| July | 4.01 m/s | 564 kWh | $165 |
| August | 3.94 m/s | 533 kWh | $156 |
| September | 4.39 m/s | 717 kWh | $210 |
| October | 5.44 m/s | 1,324 kWh | $387 |
| November | 6.08 m/s | 1,668 kWh | $488 |
| December | 6.61 m/s | 2,059 kWh | $602 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Chautauqua County averages 4.19 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.02 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.225, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 11,856 to 19,852 kWh a year, 67% 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 | 4.9 m/s | 11,856 kWh | 29 years |
| 30 m | 5.37 m/s | 15,079 kWh | 23 years |
| 40 m | 5.73 m/s | 17,677 kWh | 19 years |
| 50 m | 6.02 m/s | 19,852 kWh | 17 years |
Counties around Chautauqua County
None of the 6 closest counties is windier than Chautauqua County.
- Warren County, PA: 4.07 m/s, 6,934 kWh, payback 68 years (33 mi)
- Erie County, PA: 4.64 m/s, 10,195 kWh, payback 46 years (38 mi)
- Cattaraugus County, NY: 3.89 m/s, 6,037 kWh, payback 57 years (38 mi)
- Erie County, NY: 5.02 m/s, 12,670 kWh, payback 27 years (45 mi)
- McKean County, PA: 3.89 m/s, 6,037 kWh, payback 78 years (55 mi)
- Forest County, PA: 3.66 m/s, 4,991 kWh, payback 95 years (55 mi)
Sun versus wind in Chautauqua County
Chautauqua County gets 3.65 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,066 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,511. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.4 times. 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.