Wind Turbine Payback in Geauga County, OH
Wind turbine payback in Geauga 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 Geauga County, OH averages 4.45 m/s (10 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 9,041 kWh a year, worth $1,701 at OH's 18.81¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 59 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Geauga County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Geauga County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 6.9 m/s at the hub against 4.45 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,060 kWh a year here against the turbine's 904, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 55¢/kWh, 2.9 times what OH pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 6.9 m/s instead of 4.45. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of OH
Geauga County is the 1,778th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in OH is Lake County at 6.53 m/s, payback 23 years.
Month by month in Geauga County
January is the strongest month here, at 5.54 m/s and about 1,386 kWh. August is the weakest, 3.39 m/s and 332 kWh, so the best month makes 4.2 times the worst. November to March brings in 60% of the year's output in Geauga County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.54 m/s | 1,386 kWh | $261 |
| February | 5.38 m/s | 1,164 kWh | $219 |
| March | 4.98 m/s | 1,051 kWh | $198 |
| April | 4.82 m/s | 931 kWh | $175 |
| May | 4.00 m/s | 560 kWh | $105 |
| June | 3.70 m/s | 425 kWh | $80 |
| July | 3.42 m/s | 340 kWh | $64 |
| August | 3.39 m/s | 332 kWh | $62 |
| September | 3.73 m/s | 434 kWh | $82 |
| October | 4.48 m/s | 784 kWh | $147 |
| November | 4.85 m/s | 949 kWh | $179 |
| December | 5.12 m/s | 1,134 kWh | $213 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Geauga County averages 3.05 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.3 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.343, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 5,945 to 14,608 kWh a year, 146% 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 | 3.87 m/s | 5,945 kWh | 89 years |
| 30 m | 4.45 m/s | 9,031 kWh | 59 years |
| 40 m | 4.91 m/s | 11,929 kWh | 45 years |
| 50 m | 5.3 m/s | 14,608 kWh | 36 years |
Counties around Geauga County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Lake County, averages 6.53 m/s.
- Lake County, OH: 6.53 m/s, 23,628 kWh, payback 23 years (19 mi)
- Cuyahoga County, OH: 6.35 m/s, 22,299 kWh, payback 24 years (23 mi)
- Portage County, OH: 4.24 m/s, 7,842 kWh, payback 68 years (23 mi)
- Trumbull County, OH: 3.74 m/s, 5,342 kWh, payback 100 years (25 mi)
- Summit County, OH: 4.24 m/s, 7,842 kWh, payback 68 years (32 mi)
- Ashtabula County, OH: 5.25 m/s, 14,256 kWh, payback 37 years (36 mi)
Sun versus wind in Geauga County
Geauga 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 904. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.2 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.