Wind Turbine Payback in Seneca County, OH
Wind turbine payback in Seneca 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 Seneca County, OH averages 6.02 m/s (13.5 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 19,852 kWh a year, worth $3,734 at OH's 18.81¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 27 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Seneca County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Seneca County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 6.9 m/s at the hub against 6.02 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,121 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,985, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 25¢/kWh, 1.3 times what OH pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 6.9 m/s instead of 6.02. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of OH
Seneca County is the 816th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in OH is Lake County at 6.53 m/s, payback 23 years.
Month by month in Seneca County
January is the strongest month here, at 6.99 m/s and about 2,291 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.55 m/s and 819 kWh, so the best month makes 2.8 times the worst. November to March brings in 53% of the year's output in Seneca County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.99 m/s | 2,291 kWh | $431 |
| February | 6.80 m/s | 1,966 kWh | $370 |
| March | 6.65 m/s | 2,083 kWh | $392 |
| April | 6.82 m/s | 2,117 kWh | $398 |
| May | 5.83 m/s | 1,569 kWh | $295 |
| June | 5.21 m/s | 1,148 kWh | $216 |
| July | 4.64 m/s | 866 kWh | $163 |
| August | 4.55 m/s | 819 kWh | $154 |
| September | 5.14 m/s | 1,108 kWh | $208 |
| October | 6.25 m/s | 1,832 kWh | $345 |
| November | 6.69 m/s | 2,037 kWh | $383 |
| December | 6.70 m/s | 2,111 kWh | $397 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Seneca County averages 4.69 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.76 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.227, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 15,969 to 25,311 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 | 5.49 m/s | 15,969 kWh | 33 years |
| 30 m | 6.02 m/s | 19,851 kWh | 27 years |
| 40 m | 6.43 m/s | 22,862 kWh | 23 years |
| 50 m | 6.76 m/s | 25,311 kWh | 21 years |
Counties around Seneca County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Sandusky County, averages 6.2 m/s.
- Sandusky County, OH: 6.2 m/s, 21,187 kWh, payback 25 years (16 mi)
- Crawford County, OH: 6.02 m/s, 19,852 kWh, payback 27 years (22 mi)
- Wyandot County, OH: 6.02 m/s, 19,852 kWh, payback 27 years (22 mi)
- Huron County, OH: 6 m/s, 19,704 kWh, payback 27 years (28 mi)
- Hancock County, OH: 5.93 m/s, 19,186 kWh, payback 28 years (29 mi)
- Ottawa County, OH: 6.2 m/s, 21,187 kWh, payback 25 years (30 mi)
Sun versus wind in Seneca County
Seneca County gets 3.84 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,121 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,985. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.8 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.