Wind Turbine Payback in Forest County, PA
Wind turbine payback in Forest 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 Forest 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 Forest County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Forest 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
Forest 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 Forest County
January is the strongest month here, at 4.56 m/s and about 823 kWh. August is the weakest, 2.79 m/s and 172 kWh, so the best month makes 4.8 times the worst. November to March brings in 62% of the year's output in Forest County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.56 m/s | 823 kWh | $174 |
| February | 4.55 m/s | 740 kWh | $156 |
| March | 4.25 m/s | 672 kWh | $142 |
| April | 4.06 m/s | 566 kWh | $120 |
| May | 3.38 m/s | 328 kWh | $69 |
| June | 3.05 m/s | 225 kWh | $48 |
| July | 2.81 m/s | 175 kWh | $37 |
| August | 2.79 m/s | 172 kWh | $36 |
| September | 3.03 m/s | 221 kWh | $47 |
| October | 3.51 m/s | 370 kWh | $78 |
| November | 3.83 m/s | 472 kWh | $100 |
| December | 4.16 m/s | 628 kWh | $133 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Forest County averages 2.29 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.55 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.427, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 2,834 to 9,641 kWh a year, 240% 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 | 2,834 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.66 m/s | 4,983 kWh | 95 years |
| 40 m | 4.14 m/s | 7,282 kWh | 65 years |
| 50 m | 4.55 m/s | 9,641 kWh | 49 years |
Counties around Forest County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Warren County, averages 4.07 m/s.
- Warren County, PA: 4.07 m/s, 6,934 kWh, payback 68 years (22 mi)
- Clarion County, PA: 3.56 m/s, 4,570 kWh, payback over 100 years (24 mi)
- Venango County, PA: 3.66 m/s, 4,991 kWh, payback 95 years (28 mi)
- Jefferson County, PA: 3.7 m/s, 5,164 kWh, payback 92 years (29 mi)
- Elk County, PA: 3.75 m/s, 5,387 kWh, payback 88 years (31 mi)
- McKean County, PA: 3.89 m/s, 6,037 kWh, payback 78 years (41 mi)
Sun versus wind in Forest County
Forest 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.