Wind Turbine Payback in Essex County, NY
Wind turbine payback in Essex 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 Essex County, NY averages 3.61 m/s (8.1 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 4,778 kWh a year, worth $1,398 at NY's 29.26¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 72 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Essex County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Essex County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 5.6 m/s at the hub against 3.61 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,031 kWh a year here against the turbine's 478, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 105¢/kWh, 3.6 times what NY pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 5.6 m/s instead of 3.61. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of NY
Essex County is the 2,382nd 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 Essex County
March is the strongest month here, at 4.31 m/s and about 698 kWh. August is the weakest, 2.88 m/s and 192 kWh, so the best month makes 3.6 times the worst. November to March brings in 59% of the year's output in Essex County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.23 m/s | 663 kWh | $194 |
| February | 4.43 m/s | 684 kWh | $200 |
| March | 4.31 m/s | 698 kWh | $204 |
| April | 4.04 m/s | 557 kWh | $163 |
| May | 3.41 m/s | 337 kWh | $99 |
| June | 3.07 m/s | 230 kWh | $67 |
| July | 2.90 m/s | 197 kWh | $58 |
| August | 2.88 m/s | 192 kWh | $56 |
| September | 3.05 m/s | 226 kWh | $66 |
| October | 3.43 m/s | 345 kWh | $101 |
| November | 3.69 m/s | 421 kWh | $123 |
| December | 3.90 m/s | 517 kWh | $151 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Essex County averages 2.3 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.45 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.410, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 2,771 to 9,041 kWh a year, 226% 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 | 3.06 m/s | 2,771 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.61 m/s | 4,774 kWh | 72 years |
| 40 m | 4.06 m/s | 6,887 kWh | 50 years |
| 50 m | 4.45 m/s | 9,041 kWh | 38 years |
Counties around Essex County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Clinton County, averages 4.11 m/s.
- Addison County, VT: 3.43 m/s, 4,056 kWh, payback over 100 years (32 mi)
- Warren County, NY: 3.44 m/s, 4,094 kWh, payback 84 years (38 mi)
- Franklin County, NY: 3.96 m/s, 6,378 kWh, payback 54 years (43 mi)
- Chittenden County, VT: 3.82 m/s, 5,707 kWh, payback 73 years (43 mi)
- Clinton County, NY: 4.11 m/s, 7,143 kWh, payback 48 years (45 mi)
- Hamilton County, NY: 3.83 m/s, 5,753 kWh, payback 59 years (48 mi)
Sun versus wind in Essex County
Essex County gets 3.53 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,031 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 478. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 2.2 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.