Wind Turbine Payback in Warren County, PA
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, PA averages 4.07 m/s (9.1 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 6,934 kWh a year, worth $1,465 at PA's 21.13¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 68 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, 6.5 m/s at the hub against 4.07 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,060 kWh a year here against the turbine's 693, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 72¢/kWh, 3.4 times what PA pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 6.5 m/s instead of 4.07. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of PA
Warren County is the 2,014th 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 Warren County
January is the strongest month here, at 5.27 m/s and about 1,220 kWh. August is the weakest, 3.04 m/s and 230 kWh, so the best month makes 5.3 times the worst. November to March brings in 64% of the year's output in Warren County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.27 m/s | 1,220 kWh | $258 |
| February | 5.17 m/s | 1,053 kWh | $222 |
| March | 4.70 m/s | 900 kWh | $190 |
| April | 4.37 m/s | 707 kWh | $149 |
| May | 3.61 m/s | 407 kWh | $86 |
| June | 3.28 m/s | 287 kWh | $61 |
| July | 3.05 m/s | 232 kWh | $49 |
| August | 3.04 m/s | 230 kWh | $49 |
| September | 3.32 m/s | 299 kWh | $63 |
| October | 3.91 m/s | 522 kWh | $110 |
| November | 4.37 m/s | 703 kWh | $149 |
| December | 4.79 m/s | 949 kWh | $201 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Warren County averages 2.69 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.93 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.376, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 4,302 to 12,065 kWh a year, 180% 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 | 3.49 m/s | 4,302 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 4.07 m/s | 6,926 kWh | 68 years |
| 40 m | 4.53 m/s | 9,539 kWh | 50 years |
| 50 m | 4.93 m/s | 12,065 kWh | 39 years |
Counties around Warren County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Chautauqua County, averages 5.37 m/s.
- Forest County, PA: 3.66 m/s, 4,991 kWh, payback 95 years (22 mi)
- Chautauqua County, NY: 5.37 m/s, 15,105 kWh, payback 23 years (33 mi)
- McKean County, PA: 3.89 m/s, 6,037 kWh, payback 78 years (37 mi)
- Venango County, PA: 3.66 m/s, 4,991 kWh, payback 95 years (38 mi)
- Crawford County, PA: 3.66 m/s, 4,991 kWh, payback 95 years (43 mi)
- Cattaraugus County, NY: 3.89 m/s, 6,037 kWh, payback 57 years (43 mi)
Sun versus wind in Warren County
Warren County gets 3.63 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,060 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 693. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.5 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.