Wind Turbine Payback in Meigs County, OH
Wind turbine payback in Meigs 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 Meigs County, OH averages 3.19 m/s (7.1 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 3,198 kWh a year, worth $602 at OH's 18.81¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of over 100 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Meigs County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Meigs County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 6.9 m/s at the hub against 3.19 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,145 kWh a year here against the turbine's 320, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 156¢/kWh, 8.3 times what OH pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 6.9 m/s instead of 3.19. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of OH
Meigs County is the 2,888th 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 Meigs County
January is the strongest month here, at 3.75 m/s and about 459 kWh. August is the weakest, 2.42 m/s and 101 kWh, so the best month makes 4.5 times the worst. November to March brings in 59% of the year's output in Meigs County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.75 m/s | 459 kWh | $86 |
| February | 3.84 m/s | 445 kWh | $84 |
| March | 3.75 m/s | 459 kWh | $86 |
| April | 3.70 m/s | 424 kWh | $80 |
| May | 3.02 m/s | 226 kWh | $43 |
| June | 2.74 m/s | 155 kWh | $29 |
| July | 2.46 m/s | 108 kWh | $20 |
| August | 2.42 m/s | 101 kWh | $19 |
| September | 2.66 m/s | 139 kWh | $26 |
| October | 3.10 m/s | 247 kWh | $46 |
| November | 3.32 m/s | 300 kWh | $56 |
| December | 3.47 m/s | 358 kWh | $67 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Meigs County averages 1.91 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.04 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.465, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 1,652 to 6,780 kWh a year, 310% 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 | 2.64 m/s | 1,652 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.19 m/s | 3,184 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 3.64 m/s | 4,913 kWh | over 100 years |
| 50 m | 4.04 m/s | 6,780 kWh | 78 years |
Counties around Meigs County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Vinton County, averages 3.94 m/s.
- Athens County, OH: 3.31 m/s, 3,612 kWh, payback over 100 years (17 mi)
- Mason County, WV: 3.19 m/s, 3,198 kWh, payback over 100 years (22 mi)
- Gallia County, OH: 3.3 m/s, 3,577 kWh, payback over 100 years (24 mi)
- Jackson County, WV: 3.19 m/s, 3,198 kWh, payback over 100 years (26 mi)
- Vinton County, OH: 3.94 m/s, 6,280 kWh, payback 85 years (27 mi)
- Wood County, WV: 3.19 m/s, 3,198 kWh, payback over 100 years (29 mi)
Sun versus wind in Meigs County
Meigs County gets 3.92 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,145 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 320. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 3.6 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.