Wind Turbine Payback in Rutland County, VT
Wind turbine payback in Rutland 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 Rutland County, VT averages 3.32 m/s (7.4 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 3,648 kWh a year, worth $873 at VT's 23.93¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of over 100 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Rutland County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Rutland County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 6.2 m/s at the hub against 3.32 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,066 kWh a year here against the turbine's 365, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 137¢/kWh, 5.7 times what VT pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 6.2 m/s instead of 3.32. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of VT
Rutland County is the 2,715th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in VT is Franklin County at 3.97 m/s, payback 65 years.
Month by month in Rutland County
March is the strongest month here, at 3.97 m/s and about 544 kWh. August is the weakest, 2.65 m/s and 143 kWh, so the best month makes 3.8 times the worst. November to March brings in 57% of the year's output in Rutland County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.74 m/s | 454 kWh | $109 |
| February | 3.98 m/s | 498 kWh | $119 |
| March | 3.97 m/s | 544 kWh | $130 |
| April | 3.75 m/s | 443 kWh | $106 |
| May | 3.20 m/s | 274 kWh | $66 |
| June | 2.86 m/s | 181 kWh | $43 |
| July | 2.67 m/s | 146 kWh | $35 |
| August | 2.65 m/s | 143 kWh | $34 |
| September | 2.85 m/s | 180 kWh | $43 |
| October | 3.24 m/s | 287 kWh | $69 |
| November | 3.40 m/s | 323 kWh | $77 |
| December | 3.54 m/s | 382 kWh | $91 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Rutland County averages 2.06 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.14 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.434, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 1,999 to 7,301 kWh a year, 265% 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 | 2.78 m/s | 1,999 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.32 m/s | 3,637 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 3.76 m/s | 5,422 kWh | 77 years |
| 50 m | 4.14 m/s | 7,301 kWh | 57 years |
Counties around Rutland County
6 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Windsor County, averages 3.58 m/s.
- Windsor County, VT: 3.58 m/s, 4,653 kWh, payback 90 years (23 mi)
- Washington County, NY: 3.44 m/s, 4,094 kWh, payback 84 years (28 mi)
- Addison County, VT: 3.43 m/s, 4,056 kWh, payback over 100 years (29 mi)
- Warren County, NY: 3.44 m/s, 4,094 kWh, payback 84 years (39 mi)
- Bennington County, VT: 3.5 m/s, 4,329 kWh, payback 97 years (40 mi)
- Orange County, VT: 3.55 m/s, 4,530 kWh, payback 92 years (44 mi)
Sun versus wind in Rutland County
Rutland County gets 3.65 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,066 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 365. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 2.9 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.