Wind Turbine Payback in Morrow County, OH
Wind turbine payback in Morrow 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 Morrow County, OH averages 4.84 m/s (10.8 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 11,472 kWh a year, worth $2,158 at OH's 18.81¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 46 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Morrow County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Morrow County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 6.9 m/s at the hub against 4.84 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,127 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,147, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 44¢/kWh, 2.3 times what OH pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 6.9 m/s instead of 4.84. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of OH
Morrow County is the 1,534th 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 Morrow County
January is the strongest month here, at 5.75 m/s and about 1,516 kWh. August is the weakest, 3.63 m/s and 414 kWh, so the best month makes 3.7 times the worst. November to March brings in 56% of the year's output in Morrow County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.75 m/s | 1,516 kWh | $285 |
| February | 5.67 m/s | 1,326 kWh | $249 |
| March | 5.55 m/s | 1,393 kWh | $262 |
| April | 5.58 m/s | 1,364 kWh | $257 |
| May | 4.64 m/s | 865 kWh | $163 |
| June | 4.17 m/s | 611 kWh | $115 |
| July | 3.66 m/s | 423 kWh | $80 |
| August | 3.63 m/s | 414 kWh | $78 |
| September | 4.00 m/s | 541 kWh | $102 |
| October | 4.85 m/s | 982 kWh | $185 |
| November | 5.23 m/s | 1,161 kWh | $218 |
| December | 5.36 m/s | 1,278 kWh | $240 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Morrow County averages 3.5 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.62 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.294, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 8,136 to 16,907 kWh a year, 108% 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 | 4.29 m/s | 8,136 kWh | 65 years |
| 30 m | 4.84 m/s | 11,448 kWh | 46 years |
| 40 m | 5.26 m/s | 14,349 kWh | 37 years |
| 50 m | 5.62 m/s | 16,907 kWh | 31 years |
Counties around Morrow County
5 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Crawford County, averages 6.02 m/s.
- Marion County, OH: 5.8 m/s, 18,226 kWh, payback 29 years (20 mi)
- Delaware County, OH: 5.8 m/s, 18,226 kWh, payback 29 years (20 mi)
- Knox County, OH: 4.84 m/s, 11,472 kWh, payback 46 years (21 mi)
- Richland County, OH: 6 m/s, 19,704 kWh, payback 27 years (22 mi)
- Crawford County, OH: 6.02 m/s, 19,852 kWh, payback 27 years (23 mi)
- Union County, OH: 5.8 m/s, 18,226 kWh, payback 29 years (34 mi)
Sun versus wind in Morrow County
Morrow 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 1,147. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.0 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.