Wind Turbine Payback in Newton County, IN
Wind turbine payback in Newton 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 Newton County, IN averages 6.01 m/s (13.4 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 19,778 kWh a year, worth $3,370 at IN's 17.04¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 30 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Newton County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Newton County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.3 m/s at the hub against 6.01 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,165 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,978, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 25¢/kWh, 1.5 times what IN pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.3 m/s instead of 6.01. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of IN
Newton County is the 826th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in IN is Lake County at 6.17 m/s, payback 28 years.
Month by month in Newton County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.94 m/s and about 2,189 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.56 m/s and 822 kWh, so the best month makes 2.7 times the worst. November to March brings in 51% of the year's output in Newton County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.71 m/s | 2,119 kWh | $361 |
| February | 6.65 m/s | 1,879 kWh | $320 |
| March | 6.62 m/s | 2,064 kWh | $352 |
| April | 6.94 m/s | 2,189 kWh | $373 |
| May | 6.06 m/s | 1,712 kWh | $292 |
| June | 5.23 m/s | 1,162 kWh | $198 |
| July | 4.60 m/s | 846 kWh | $144 |
| August | 4.56 m/s | 822 kWh | $140 |
| September | 5.26 m/s | 1,178 kWh | $201 |
| October | 6.28 m/s | 1,852 kWh | $316 |
| November | 6.68 m/s | 2,035 kWh | $347 |
| December | 6.52 m/s | 1,998 kWh | $340 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Newton County averages 4.68 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.75 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.228, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 15,874 to 25,239 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 | 5.48 m/s | 15,874 kWh | 37 years |
| 30 m | 6.01 m/s | 19,763 kWh | 30 years |
| 40 m | 6.42 m/s | 22,781 kWh | 26 years |
| 50 m | 6.75 m/s | 25,239 kWh | 23 years |
Counties around Newton County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Lake County, averages 6.17 m/s.
- Jasper County, IN: 5.97 m/s, 19,482 kWh, payback 30 years (15 mi)
- Benton County, IN: 5.99 m/s, 19,630 kWh, payback 30 years (25 mi)
- Kankakee County, IL: 6.02 m/s, 19,852 kWh, payback 26 years (27 mi)
- Iroquois County, IL: 6.07 m/s, 20,223 kWh, payback 26 years (27 mi)
- White County, IN: 5.97 m/s, 19,482 kWh, payback 30 years (32 mi)
- Lake County, IN: 6.17 m/s, 20,965 kWh, payback 28 years (35 mi)
Sun versus wind in Newton County
Newton County gets 3.99 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,165 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,978. 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.