Wind Turbine Payback in Elk County, PA
Wind turbine payback in Elk 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 Elk County, PA averages 3.75 m/s (8.4 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 5,387 kWh a year, worth $1,138 at PA's 21.13¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 88 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Elk County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Elk County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 6.5 m/s at the hub against 3.75 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,057 kWh a year here against the turbine's 539, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 93¢/kWh, 4.4 times what PA pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 6.5 m/s instead of 3.75. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of PA
Elk County is the 2,250th 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 Elk County
January is the strongest month here, at 4.72 m/s and about 908 kWh. August is the weakest, 2.82 m/s and 179 kWh, so the best month makes 5.1 times the worst. November to March brings in 63% of the year's output in Elk County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.72 m/s | 908 kWh | $192 |
| February | 4.73 m/s | 828 kWh | $175 |
| March | 4.38 m/s | 733 kWh | $155 |
| April | 4.15 m/s | 606 kWh | $128 |
| May | 3.44 m/s | 349 kWh | $74 |
| June | 3.11 m/s | 240 kWh | $51 |
| July | 2.85 m/s | 186 kWh | $39 |
| August | 2.82 m/s | 179 kWh | $38 |
| September | 3.05 m/s | 226 kWh | $48 |
| October | 3.56 m/s | 390 kWh | $82 |
| November | 3.91 m/s | 505 kWh | $107 |
| December | 4.32 m/s | 705 kWh | $149 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Elk County averages 2.36 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.65 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.421, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 3,105 to 10,257 kWh a year, 230% 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 | 3.16 m/s | 3,105 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.75 m/s | 5,388 kWh | 88 years |
| 40 m | 4.23 m/s | 7,804 kWh | 61 years |
| 50 m | 4.65 m/s | 10,257 kWh | 46 years |
Counties around Elk County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, McKean County, averages 3.89 m/s.
- Cameron County, PA: 3.71 m/s, 5,209 kWh, payback 91 years (24 mi)
- McKean County, PA: 3.89 m/s, 6,037 kWh, payback 78 years (27 mi)
- Jefferson County, PA: 3.7 m/s, 5,164 kWh, payback 92 years (27 mi)
- Clearfield County, PA: 3.7 m/s, 5,164 kWh, payback 92 years (30 mi)
- Forest County, PA: 3.66 m/s, 4,991 kWh, payback 95 years (31 mi)
- Clarion County, PA: 3.56 m/s, 4,570 kWh, payback over 100 years (43 mi)
Sun versus wind in Elk County
Elk 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 539. 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.