Wind Turbine Payback in Crawford County, PA
Wind turbine payback in Crawford 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 Crawford County, PA averages 3.66 m/s (8.2 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 4,991 kWh a year, worth $1,054 at PA's 21.13¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 95 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Crawford County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Crawford County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 6.5 m/s at the hub against 3.66 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,060 kWh a year here against the turbine's 499, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 100¢/kWh, 4.7 times what PA pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 6.5 m/s instead of 3.66. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of PA
Crawford County is the 2,323rd 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 Crawford County
January is the strongest month here, at 4.54 m/s and about 812 kWh. July is the weakest, 2.82 m/s and 178 kWh, so the best month makes 4.6 times the worst. November to March brings in 61% of the year's output in Crawford County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.54 m/s | 812 kWh | $172 |
| February | 4.52 m/s | 726 kWh | $153 |
| March | 4.22 m/s | 658 kWh | $139 |
| April | 4.04 m/s | 559 kWh | $118 |
| May | 3.36 m/s | 322 kWh | $68 |
| June | 3.06 m/s | 229 kWh | $48 |
| July | 2.82 m/s | 178 kWh | $38 |
| August | 2.83 m/s | 180 kWh | $38 |
| September | 3.07 m/s | 231 kWh | $49 |
| October | 3.55 m/s | 386 kWh | $82 |
| November | 3.84 m/s | 478 kWh | $101 |
| December | 4.13 m/s | 613 kWh | $130 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Crawford County averages 2.3 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.54 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.423, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 2,848 to 9,580 kWh a year, 236% 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 | 3.08 m/s | 2,848 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.66 m/s | 4,981 kWh | 95 years |
| 40 m | 4.13 m/s | 7,254 kWh | 65 years |
| 50 m | 4.54 m/s | 9,580 kWh | 49 years |
Counties around Crawford County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Ashtabula County, averages 5.25 m/s.
- Venango County, PA: 3.66 m/s, 4,991 kWh, payback 95 years (27 mi)
- Mercer County, PA: 3.66 m/s, 4,991 kWh, payback 95 years (28 mi)
- Erie County, PA: 4.64 m/s, 10,195 kWh, payback 46 years (30 mi)
- Ashtabula County, OH: 5.25 m/s, 14,256 kWh, payback 37 years (36 mi)
- Warren County, PA: 4.07 m/s, 6,934 kWh, payback 68 years (43 mi)
- Trumbull County, OH: 3.74 m/s, 5,342 kWh, payback 100 years (43 mi)
Sun versus wind in Crawford County
Crawford County gets 3.63 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,060 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 499. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 2.1 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.