Wind Turbine Payback in Mercer County, OH
Wind turbine payback in Mercer 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 Mercer County, OH averages 5.92 m/s (13.2 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 19,112 kWh a year, worth $3,595 at OH's 18.81¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 28 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Mercer County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Mercer County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 6.9 m/s at the hub against 5.92 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,150 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,911, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 26¢/kWh, 1.4 times what OH pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 6.9 m/s instead of 5.92. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of OH
Mercer County is the 959th 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 Mercer County
January is the strongest month here, at 6.85 m/s and about 2,203 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.35 m/s and 719 kWh, so the best month makes 3.1 times the worst. November to March brings in 53% of the year's output in Mercer County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.85 m/s | 2,203 kWh | $414 |
| February | 6.72 m/s | 1,920 kWh | $361 |
| March | 6.61 m/s | 2,059 kWh | $387 |
| April | 6.85 m/s | 2,132 kWh | $401 |
| May | 5.83 m/s | 1,567 kWh | $295 |
| June | 5.13 m/s | 1,106 kWh | $208 |
| July | 4.45 m/s | 767 kWh | $144 |
| August | 4.35 m/s | 719 kWh | $135 |
| September | 4.98 m/s | 1,021 kWh | $192 |
| October | 6.14 m/s | 1,763 kWh | $332 |
| November | 6.60 m/s | 1,982 kWh | $373 |
| December | 6.61 m/s | 2,054 kWh | $386 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Mercer County averages 4.62 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.64 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.225, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 15,340 to 24,436 kWh a year, 59% 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 | 5.4 m/s | 15,340 kWh | 35 years |
| 30 m | 5.92 m/s | 19,105 kWh | 28 years |
| 40 m | 6.31 m/s | 22,039 kWh | 24 years |
| 50 m | 6.64 m/s | 24,436 kWh | 22 years |
Counties around Mercer County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Jay County, averages 5.95 m/s.
- Jay County, IN: 5.95 m/s, 19,334 kWh, payback 30 years (21 mi)
- Auglaize County, OH: 5.92 m/s, 19,112 kWh, payback 28 years (21 mi)
- Adams County, IN: 5.95 m/s, 19,334 kWh, payback 30 years (22 mi)
- Van Wert County, OH: 5.88 m/s, 18,816 kWh, payback 28 years (22 mi)
- Shelby County, OH: 5.92 m/s, 19,112 kWh, payback 28 years (26 mi)
- Darke County, OH: 5.77 m/s, 18,006 kWh, payback 30 years (28 mi)
Sun versus wind in Mercer County
Mercer County gets 3.94 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,150 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,911. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.7 times. 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.