Wind Turbine Payback in Clinton County, IN
Wind turbine payback in Clinton 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 Clinton County, IN averages 5.95 m/s (13.3 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 19,334 kWh a year, worth $3,294 at IN's 17.04¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 30 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Clinton County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Clinton County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.3 m/s at the hub against 5.95 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,159 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,933, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 26¢/kWh, 1.5 times what IN pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.3 m/s instead of 5.95. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of IN
Clinton County is the 914th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in IN is Lake County at 6.17 m/s, payback 28 years.
Month by month in Clinton County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.91 m/s and about 2,169 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.45 m/s and 770 kWh, so the best month makes 2.8 times the worst. November to March brings in 52% of the year's output in Clinton County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.77 m/s | 2,154 kWh | $367 |
| February | 6.64 m/s | 1,876 kWh | $320 |
| March | 6.59 m/s | 2,043 kWh | $348 |
| April | 6.91 m/s | 2,169 kWh | $370 |
| May | 5.95 m/s | 1,641 kWh | $280 |
| June | 5.18 m/s | 1,134 kWh | $193 |
| July | 4.47 m/s | 779 kWh | $133 |
| August | 4.45 m/s | 770 kWh | $131 |
| September | 5.07 m/s | 1,068 kWh | $182 |
| October | 6.19 m/s | 1,792 kWh | $305 |
| November | 6.62 m/s | 1,999 kWh | $341 |
| December | 6.57 m/s | 2,032 kWh | $346 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Clinton County averages 4.62 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.69 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.230, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 15,453 to 24,801 kWh a year, 60% 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 | 5.42 m/s | 15,453 kWh | 38 years |
| 30 m | 5.95 m/s | 19,322 kWh | 30 years |
| 40 m | 6.36 m/s | 22,338 kWh | 26 years |
| 50 m | 6.69 m/s | 24,801 kWh | 24 years |
Counties around Clinton County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Carroll County, averages 5.97 m/s.
- Boone County, IN: 5.8 m/s, 18,226 kWh, payback 32 years (18 mi)
- Carroll County, IN: 5.97 m/s, 19,482 kWh, payback 30 years (20 mi)
- Tipton County, IN: 5.95 m/s, 19,334 kWh, payback 30 years (22 mi)
- Tippecanoe County, IN: 5.97 m/s, 19,482 kWh, payback 30 years (23 mi)
- Howard County, IN: 5.95 m/s, 19,334 kWh, payback 30 years (23 mi)
- Montgomery County, IN: 5.84 m/s, 18,521 kWh, payback 32 years (29 mi)
Sun versus wind in Clinton County
Clinton County gets 3.97 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,159 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,933. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.7 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.