Wind Turbine Payback in Tioga County, PA
Wind turbine payback in Tioga 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 Tioga County, PA averages 3.86 m/s (8.6 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 5,894 kWh a year, worth $1,245 at PA's 21.13¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 80 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Tioga County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Tioga County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 6.5 m/s at the hub against 3.86 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,080 kWh a year here against the turbine's 589, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 85¢/kWh, 4.0 times what PA pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 6.5 m/s instead of 3.86. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of PA
Tioga County is the 2,167th 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 Tioga County
January is the strongest month here, at 4.82 m/s and about 964 kWh. August is the weakest, 2.92 m/s and 202 kWh, so the best month makes 4.8 times the worst. November to March brings in 63% of the year's output in Tioga County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.82 m/s | 964 kWh | $204 |
| February | 4.89 m/s | 908 kWh | $192 |
| March | 4.56 m/s | 826 kWh | $175 |
| April | 4.22 m/s | 638 kWh | $135 |
| May | 3.53 m/s | 378 kWh | $80 |
| June | 3.21 m/s | 267 kWh | $56 |
| July | 3.00 m/s | 220 kWh | $46 |
| August | 2.92 m/s | 202 kWh | $43 |
| September | 3.14 m/s | 250 kWh | $53 |
| October | 3.63 m/s | 412 kWh | $87 |
| November | 4.01 m/s | 543 kWh | $115 |
| December | 4.41 m/s | 748 kWh | $158 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Tioga County averages 2.44 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.78 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.418, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 3,433 to 11,082 kWh a year, 223% 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 | 3.26 m/s | 3,433 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.86 m/s | 5,899 kWh | 80 years |
| 40 m | 4.35 m/s | 8,485 kWh | 56 years |
| 50 m | 4.78 m/s | 11,082 kWh | 43 years |
Counties around Tioga County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Steuben County, averages 3.94 m/s.
- Lycoming County, PA: 3.57 m/s, 4,612 kWh, payback over 100 years (31 mi)
- Potter County, PA: 3.71 m/s, 5,209 kWh, payback 91 years (33 mi)
- Steuben County, NY: 3.94 m/s, 6,280 kWh, payback 54 years (35 mi)
- Chemung County, NY: 3.74 m/s, 5,342 kWh, payback 64 years (37 mi)
- Bradford County, PA: 3.63 m/s, 4,862 kWh, payback 97 years (39 mi)
- Clinton County, PA: 3.42 m/s, 4,018 kWh, payback over 100 years (41 mi)
Sun versus wind in Tioga County
Tioga 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 589. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.8 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.