Wind Turbine Payback in Chemung County, NY
Wind turbine payback in Chemung 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 Chemung County, NY averages 3.74 m/s (8.4 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 5,342 kWh a year, worth $1,563 at NY's 29.26¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 64 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Chemung County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Chemung County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 5.6 m/s at the hub against 3.74 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,057 kWh a year here against the turbine's 534, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 94¢/kWh, 3.2 times what NY pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 5.6 m/s instead of 3.74. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of NY
Chemung County is the 2,255th 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 Chemung County
January is the strongest month here, at 4.59 m/s and about 839 kWh. August is the weakest, 2.90 m/s and 197 kWh, so the best month makes 4.3 times the worst. November to March brings in 62% of the year's output in Chemung County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.59 m/s | 839 kWh | $245 |
| February | 4.69 m/s | 804 kWh | $235 |
| March | 4.44 m/s | 761 kWh | $223 |
| April | 4.10 m/s | 582 kWh | $170 |
| May | 3.46 m/s | 355 kWh | $104 |
| June | 3.15 m/s | 252 kWh | $74 |
| July | 2.97 m/s | 212 kWh | $62 |
| August | 2.90 m/s | 197 kWh | $58 |
| September | 3.09 m/s | 237 kWh | $69 |
| October | 3.53 m/s | 377 kWh | $110 |
| November | 3.88 m/s | 493 kWh | $144 |
| December | 4.20 m/s | 649 kWh | $190 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Chemung County averages 2.34 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.66 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.428, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 3,061 to 10,320 kWh a year, 237% 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 | 3.15 m/s | 3,061 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.74 m/s | 5,364 kWh | 64 years |
| 40 m | 4.24 m/s | 7,818 kWh | 44 years |
| 50 m | 4.66 m/s | 10,320 kWh | 33 years |
Counties around Chemung County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Steuben County, averages 3.94 m/s.
- Schuyler County, NY: 3.85 m/s, 5,847 kWh, payback 58 years (21 mi)
- Tioga County, NY: 3.63 m/s, 4,862 kWh, payback 70 years (23 mi)
- Tompkins County, NY: 3.88 m/s, 5,989 kWh, payback 57 years (25 mi)
- Bradford County, PA: 3.63 m/s, 4,862 kWh, payback 97 years (28 mi)
- Steuben County, NY: 3.94 m/s, 6,280 kWh, payback 54 years (33 mi)
- Tioga County, PA: 3.86 m/s, 5,894 kWh, payback 80 years (37 mi)
Sun versus wind in Chemung County
Chemung County gets 3.62 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,057 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 534. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 2.0 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.