Wind Turbine Payback in Warren County, NY
Wind turbine payback in Warren 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 Warren County, NY averages 3.44 m/s (7.7 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 4,094 kWh a year, worth $1,198 at NY's 29.26¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 84 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Warren County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Warren County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 5.6 m/s at the hub against 3.44 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,066 kWh a year here against the turbine's 409, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 122¢/kWh, 4.2 times what NY pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 5.6 m/s instead of 3.44. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of NY
Warren County is the 2,573rd windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in NY is Niagara County at 6.87 m/s, payback 13 years.
Month by month in Warren County
March is the strongest month here, at 4.14 m/s and about 620 kWh. August is the weakest, 2.74 m/s and 161 kWh, so the best month makes 3.9 times the worst. November to March brings in 58% of the year's output in Warren County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.98 m/s | 550 kWh | $161 |
| February | 4.20 m/s | 583 kWh | $171 |
| March | 4.14 m/s | 620 kWh | $181 |
| April | 3.87 m/s | 487 kWh | $142 |
| May | 3.27 m/s | 294 kWh | $86 |
| June | 2.94 m/s | 199 kWh | $58 |
| July | 2.78 m/s | 169 kWh | $49 |
| August | 2.74 m/s | 161 kWh | $47 |
| September | 2.91 m/s | 192 kWh | $56 |
| October | 3.29 m/s | 301 kWh | $88 |
| November | 3.48 m/s | 348 kWh | $102 |
| December | 3.67 m/s | 427 kWh | $125 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Warren County averages 2.13 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.29 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.435, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 2,259 to 8,120 kWh a year, 259% 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 | 2.88 m/s | 2,259 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.44 m/s | 4,076 kWh | 84 years |
| 40 m | 3.89 m/s | 6,052 kWh | 57 years |
| 50 m | 4.29 m/s | 8,120 kWh | 42 years |
Counties around Warren County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Hamilton County, averages 3.83 m/s.
- Washington County, NY: 3.44 m/s, 4,094 kWh, payback 84 years (26 mi)
- Saratoga County, NY: 3.31 m/s, 3,612 kWh, payback 95 years (31 mi)
- Hamilton County, NY: 3.83 m/s, 5,753 kWh, payback 59 years (34 mi)
- Essex County, NY: 3.61 m/s, 4,778 kWh, payback 72 years (38 mi)
- Rutland County, VT: 3.32 m/s, 3,648 kWh, payback over 100 years (39 mi)
- Fulton County, NY: 3.61 m/s, 4,778 kWh, payback 72 years (42 mi)
Sun versus wind in Warren County
Warren 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 409. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 2.6 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.