Wind Turbine Payback in Oswego County, NY
Wind turbine payback in Oswego 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 Oswego County, NY averages 4.74 m/s (10.6 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 10,826 kWh a year, worth $3,168 at NY's 29.26¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 32 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Oswego County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Oswego County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 5.6 m/s at the hub against 4.74 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,048 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,083, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 46¢/kWh, 1.6 times what NY pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 5.6 m/s instead of 4.74. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of NY
Oswego County is the 1,592nd windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in NY is Niagara County at 6.87 m/s, payback 13 years.
Month by month in Oswego County
January is the strongest month here, at 6.22 m/s and about 1,815 kWh. July is the weakest, 3.51 m/s and 371 kWh, so the best month makes 4.9 times the worst. November to March brings in 65% of the year's output in Oswego County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.22 m/s | 1,815 kWh | $531 |
| February | 6.20 m/s | 1,624 kWh | $475 |
| March | 5.53 m/s | 1,383 kWh | $405 |
| April | 4.90 m/s | 974 kWh | $285 |
| May | 3.94 m/s | 532 kWh | $156 |
| June | 3.57 m/s | 379 kWh | $111 |
| July | 3.51 m/s | 371 kWh | $109 |
| August | 3.56 m/s | 389 kWh | $114 |
| September | 3.89 m/s | 498 kWh | $146 |
| October | 4.66 m/s | 877 kWh | $257 |
| November | 5.18 m/s | 1,130 kWh | $331 |
| December | 5.75 m/s | 1,518 kWh | $444 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Oswego County averages 3.54 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.43 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.266, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 7,928 to 15,534 kWh a year, 96% 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 | 4.26 m/s | 7,928 kWh | 43 years |
| 30 m | 4.74 m/s | 10,826 kWh | 32 years |
| 40 m | 5.12 m/s | 13,332 kWh | 26 years |
| 50 m | 5.43 m/s | 15,534 kWh | 22 years |
Counties around Oswego County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Jefferson County, averages 5.05 m/s.
- Onondaga County, NY: 3.95 m/s, 6,329 kWh, payback 54 years (31 mi)
- Cayuga County, NY: 4.06 m/s, 6,883 kWh, payback 50 years (36 mi)
- Jefferson County, NY: 5.05 m/s, 12,873 kWh, payback 27 years (38 mi)
- Oneida County, NY: 3.88 m/s, 5,989 kWh, payback 57 years (42 mi)
- Lewis County, NY: 4.03 m/s, 6,729 kWh, payback 51 years (44 mi)
- Wayne County, NY: 4.06 m/s, 6,883 kWh, payback 50 years (45 mi)
Sun versus wind in Oswego County
Oswego County gets 3.59 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,048 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,083. 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.