Wind Turbine Payback in Clinton County, PA
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, PA averages 3.42 m/s (7.7 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 4,018 kWh a year, worth $849 at PA's 21.13¢/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 Clinton County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Clinton County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 6.5 m/s at the hub against 3.42 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,080 kWh a year here against the turbine's 402, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 124¢/kWh, 5.9 times what PA pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 6.5 m/s instead of 3.42. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of PA
Clinton County is the 2,596th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in PA is Philadelphia County at 4.74 m/s, payback 44 years.
Month by month in Clinton County
January is the strongest month here, at 4.15 m/s and about 626 kWh. August is the weakest, 2.62 m/s and 136 kWh, so the best month makes 4.6 times the worst. November to March brings in 61% of the year's output in Clinton County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.15 m/s | 626 kWh | $132 |
| February | 4.22 m/s | 595 kWh | $126 |
| March | 4.06 m/s | 587 kWh | $124 |
| April | 3.83 m/s | 471 kWh | $100 |
| May | 3.18 m/s | 269 kWh | $57 |
| June | 2.89 m/s | 187 kWh | $40 |
| July | 2.70 m/s | 152 kWh | $32 |
| August | 2.62 m/s | 136 kWh | $29 |
| September | 2.85 m/s | 179 kWh | $38 |
| October | 3.29 m/s | 299 kWh | $63 |
| November | 3.53 m/s | 366 kWh | $77 |
| December | 3.81 m/s | 481 kWh | $102 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Clinton County averages 2.09 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.3 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.448, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 2,184 to 8,176 kWh a year, 274% 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 | 2.85 m/s | 2,184 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.42 m/s | 4,019 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 3.89 m/s | 6,042 kWh | 78 years |
| 50 m | 4.3 m/s | 8,176 kWh | 58 years |
Counties around Clinton County
5 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Tioga County, averages 3.86 m/s.
- Centre County, PA: 3.6 m/s, 4,736 kWh, payback 100 years (25 mi)
- Lycoming County, PA: 3.57 m/s, 4,612 kWh, payback over 100 years (31 mi)
- Cameron County, PA: 3.71 m/s, 5,209 kWh, payback 91 years (33 mi)
- Union County, PA: 3.38 m/s, 3,868 kWh, payback over 100 years (35 mi)
- Potter County, PA: 3.71 m/s, 5,209 kWh, payback 91 years (38 mi)
- Tioga County, PA: 3.86 m/s, 5,894 kWh, payback 80 years (41 mi)
Sun versus wind in Clinton County
Clinton 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 402. 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.