Wind Turbine Payback in Potter County, PA
Wind turbine payback in Potter 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 Potter County, PA averages 3.71 m/s (8.3 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 5,209 kWh a year, worth $1,101 at PA's 21.13¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 91 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Potter County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Potter County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 6.5 m/s at the hub against 3.71 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,080 kWh a year here against the turbine's 521, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 96¢/kWh, 4.5 times what PA pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 6.5 m/s instead of 3.71. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of PA
Potter County is the 2,280th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in PA is Philadelphia County at 4.74 m/s, payback 44 years.
Month by month in Potter County
January is the strongest month here, at 4.64 m/s and about 868 kWh. August is the weakest, 2.79 m/s and 171 kWh, so the best month makes 5.1 times the worst. November to March brings in 63% of the year's output in Potter County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.64 m/s | 868 kWh | $183 |
| February | 4.70 m/s | 812 kWh | $172 |
| March | 4.38 m/s | 733 kWh | $155 |
| April | 4.11 m/s | 589 kWh | $124 |
| May | 3.42 m/s | 340 kWh | $72 |
| June | 3.09 m/s | 235 kWh | $50 |
| July | 2.85 m/s | 186 kWh | $39 |
| August | 2.79 m/s | 171 kWh | $36 |
| September | 3.01 m/s | 215 kWh | $45 |
| October | 3.53 m/s | 377 kWh | $80 |
| November | 3.86 m/s | 483 kWh | $102 |
| December | 4.26 m/s | 675 kWh | $143 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Potter County averages 2.32 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.62 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.428, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 2,974 to 10,070 kWh a year, 239% 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 | 3.12 m/s | 2,974 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.71 m/s | 5,220 kWh | 91 years |
| 40 m | 4.2 m/s | 7,619 kWh | 62 years |
| 50 m | 4.62 m/s | 10,070 kWh | 47 years |
Counties around Potter County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Steuben County, averages 3.94 m/s.
- Cameron County, PA: 3.71 m/s, 5,209 kWh, payback 91 years (27 mi)
- Tioga County, PA: 3.86 m/s, 5,894 kWh, payback 80 years (33 mi)
- Allegany County, NY: 3.89 m/s, 6,037 kWh, payback 57 years (35 mi)
- McKean County, PA: 3.89 m/s, 6,037 kWh, payback 78 years (35 mi)
- Clinton County, PA: 3.42 m/s, 4,018 kWh, payback over 100 years (38 mi)
- Steuben County, NY: 3.94 m/s, 6,280 kWh, payback 54 years (44 mi)
Sun versus wind in Potter County
Potter County gets 3.7 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,080 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 521. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 2.1 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.