Wind Turbine Payback in Licking County, OH
Wind turbine payback in Licking 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 Licking County, OH averages 4.33 m/s (9.7 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 8,346 kWh a year, worth $1,570 at OH's 18.81¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 64 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Licking County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Licking County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 6.9 m/s at the hub against 4.33 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,127 kWh a year here against the turbine's 835, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 60¢/kWh, 3.2 times what OH pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 6.9 m/s instead of 4.33. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of OH
Licking County is the 1,877th 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 Licking County
January is the strongest month here, at 5.12 m/s and about 1,132 kWh. August is the weakest, 3.27 m/s and 294 kWh, so the best month makes 3.9 times the worst. November to March brings in 57% of the year's output in Licking County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.12 m/s | 1,132 kWh | $213 |
| February | 5.12 m/s | 1,023 kWh | $192 |
| March | 5.01 m/s | 1,069 kWh | $201 |
| April | 5.02 m/s | 1,044 kWh | $196 |
| May | 4.15 m/s | 623 kWh | $117 |
| June | 3.76 m/s | 446 kWh | $84 |
| July | 3.29 m/s | 302 kWh | $57 |
| August | 3.27 m/s | 294 kWh | $55 |
| September | 3.60 m/s | 388 kWh | $73 |
| October | 4.32 m/s | 702 kWh | $132 |
| November | 4.65 m/s | 845 kWh | $159 |
| December | 4.77 m/s | 936 kWh | $176 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Licking County averages 3.01 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.13 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.331, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 5,559 to 13,421 kWh a year, 141% 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 | 3.79 m/s | 5,559 kWh | 96 years |
| 30 m | 4.33 m/s | 8,357 kWh | 64 years |
| 40 m | 4.76 m/s | 10,984 kWh | 48 years |
| 50 m | 5.13 m/s | 13,421 kWh | 40 years |
Counties around Licking County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Delaware County, averages 5.8 m/s.
- Knox County, OH: 4.84 m/s, 11,472 kWh, payback 46 years (22 mi)
- Fairfield County, OH: 3.94 m/s, 6,280 kWh, payback 85 years (25 mi)
- Perry County, OH: 3.94 m/s, 6,280 kWh, payback 85 years (27 mi)
- Franklin County, OH: 5.54 m/s, 16,326 kWh, payback 33 years (29 mi)
- Muskingum County, OH: 3.37 m/s, 3,830 kWh, payback over 100 years (30 mi)
- Delaware County, OH: 5.8 m/s, 18,226 kWh, payback 29 years (31 mi)
Sun versus wind in Licking County
Licking County gets 3.86 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,127 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 835. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.3 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.