Wind Turbine Payback in Passaic County, NJ
Wind turbine payback in Passaic 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 Passaic County, NJ averages 3.66 m/s (8.2 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 4,991 kWh a year, worth $1,202 at NJ's 24.09¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 83 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Passaic County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Passaic County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 6.1 m/s at the hub against 3.66 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,101 kWh a year here against the turbine's 499, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 100¢/kWh, 4.2 times what NJ pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 6.1 m/s instead of 3.66. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of NJ
Passaic County is the 2,323rd windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in NJ is Cape May County at 6.6 m/s, payback 17 years.
Month by month in Passaic County
March is the strongest month here, at 4.38 m/s and about 734 kWh. August is the weakest, 2.87 m/s and 190 kWh, so the best month makes 3.9 times the worst. November to March brings in 60% of the year's output in Passaic County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.32 m/s | 703 kWh | $169 |
| February | 4.50 m/s | 718 kWh | $173 |
| March | 4.38 m/s | 734 kWh | $177 |
| April | 3.99 m/s | 538 kWh | $130 |
| May | 3.35 m/s | 319 kWh | $77 |
| June | 3.07 m/s | 232 kWh | $56 |
| July | 2.92 m/s | 202 kWh | $49 |
| August | 2.87 m/s | 190 kWh | $46 |
| September | 3.14 m/s | 249 kWh | $60 |
| October | 3.61 m/s | 405 kWh | $98 |
| November | 3.84 m/s | 477 kWh | $115 |
| December | 4.07 m/s | 591 kWh | $142 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Passaic County averages 2.31 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.54 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.420, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 2,874 to 9,580 kWh a year, 233% 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 | 3.09 m/s | 2,874 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.66 m/s | 5,005 kWh | 83 years |
| 40 m | 4.13 m/s | 7,268 kWh | 57 years |
| 50 m | 4.54 m/s | 9,580 kWh | 43 years |
Counties around Passaic County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Rockland County, averages 4.5 m/s.
- Bergen County, NJ: 3.66 m/s, 4,991 kWh, payback 83 years (13 mi)
- Rockland County, NY: 4.5 m/s, 9,339 kWh, payback 37 years (16 mi)
- Essex County, NJ: 3.66 m/s, 4,991 kWh, payback 83 years (17 mi)
- Morris County, NJ: 3.66 m/s, 4,991 kWh, payback 83 years (18 mi)
- Sussex County, NJ: 3.55 m/s, 4,530 kWh, payback 92 years (22 mi)
- Hudson County, NJ: 4.44 m/s, 8,982 kWh, payback 46 years (24 mi)
Sun versus wind in Passaic County
Passaic County gets 3.77 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,101 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 499. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 2.2 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.