Wind Turbine Payback in McKean County, PA
Wind turbine payback in McKean 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 McKean County, PA averages 3.89 m/s (8.7 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 6,037 kWh a year, worth $1,276 at PA's 21.13¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 78 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in McKean County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in McKean County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 6.5 m/s at the hub against 3.89 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,057 kWh a year here against the turbine's 604, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 83¢/kWh, 3.9 times what PA pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 6.5 m/s instead of 3.89. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of PA
McKean County is the 2,141st 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 McKean County
January is the strongest month here, at 4.97 m/s and about 1,049 kWh. August is the weakest, 2.91 m/s and 198 kWh, so the best month makes 5.3 times the worst. November to March brings in 64% of the year's output in McKean County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.97 m/s | 1,049 kWh | $222 |
| February | 4.97 m/s | 944 kWh | $199 |
| March | 4.55 m/s | 819 kWh | $173 |
| April | 4.25 m/s | 649 kWh | $137 |
| May | 3.53 m/s | 379 kWh | $80 |
| June | 3.19 m/s | 263 kWh | $56 |
| July | 2.95 m/s | 210 kWh | $44 |
| August | 2.91 m/s | 198 kWh | $42 |
| September | 3.16 m/s | 254 kWh | $54 |
| October | 3.68 m/s | 431 kWh | $91 |
| November | 4.08 m/s | 573 kWh | $121 |
| December | 4.53 m/s | 806 kWh | $170 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in McKean County averages 2.5 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.78 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.403, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 3,591 to 11,082 kWh a year, 209% 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 | 3.3 m/s | 3,591 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.89 m/s | 6,040 kWh | 78 years |
| 40 m | 4.37 m/s | 8,568 kWh | 55 years |
| 50 m | 4.78 m/s | 11,082 kWh | 43 years |
Counties around McKean County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Warren County, averages 4.07 m/s.
- Elk County, PA: 3.75 m/s, 5,387 kWh, payback 88 years (27 mi)
- Cattaraugus County, NY: 3.89 m/s, 6,037 kWh, payback 57 years (30 mi)
- Cameron County, PA: 3.71 m/s, 5,209 kWh, payback 91 years (32 mi)
- Potter County, PA: 3.71 m/s, 5,209 kWh, payback 91 years (35 mi)
- Warren County, PA: 4.07 m/s, 6,934 kWh, payback 68 years (37 mi)
- Forest County, PA: 3.66 m/s, 4,991 kWh, payback 95 years (41 mi)
Sun versus wind in McKean County
McKean 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 604. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.8 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.