Wind Turbine Payback in Aitkin County, MN
Wind turbine payback in Aitkin 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 Aitkin County, MN averages 6.32 m/s (14.1 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 22,077 kWh a year, worth $3,629 at MN's 16.44¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 28 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Aitkin County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Aitkin County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.5 m/s at the hub against 6.32 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,080 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,208, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 23¢/kWh, 1.4 times what MN pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.5 m/s instead of 6.32. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MN
Aitkin County is the 452nd windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in MN is Lincoln County at 6.68 m/s, payback 25 years.
Month by month in Aitkin County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.83 m/s and about 2,125 kWh. July is the weakest, 5.48 m/s and 1,350 kWh, so the best month makes 1.6 times the worst. November to March brings in 44% of the year's output in Aitkin County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.58 m/s | 2,040 kWh | $335 |
| February | 6.71 m/s | 1,913 kWh | $314 |
| March | 6.52 m/s | 2,001 kWh | $329 |
| April | 6.83 m/s | 2,125 kWh | $349 |
| May | 6.34 m/s | 1,888 kWh | $310 |
| June | 5.95 m/s | 1,587 kWh | $261 |
| July | 5.48 m/s | 1,350 kWh | $222 |
| August | 5.63 m/s | 1,444 kWh | $237 |
| September | 6.41 m/s | 1,871 kWh | $308 |
| October | 6.66 m/s | 2,085 kWh | $343 |
| November | 6.50 m/s | 1,925 kWh | $316 |
| December | 6.25 m/s | 1,832 kWh | $301 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Aitkin County averages 5 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.04 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.213, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 18,166 to 27,328 kWh a year, 50% 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 | 5.79 m/s | 18,166 kWh | 34 years |
| 30 m | 6.31 m/s | 22,034 kWh | 28 years |
| 40 m | 6.71 m/s | 24,971 kWh | 24 years |
| 50 m | 7.04 m/s | 27,328 kWh | 22 years |
Counties around Aitkin County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Crow Wing County, averages 6.41 m/s.
- Crow Wing County, MN: 6.41 m/s, 22,743 kWh, payback 27 years (32 mi)
- Carlton County, MN: 5.93 m/s, 19,186 kWh, payback 32 years (36 mi)
- Kanabec County, MN: 6.14 m/s, 20,742 kWh, payback 29 years (46 mi)
- Pine County, MN: 5.77 m/s, 18,006 kWh, payback 34 years (47 mi)
- Mille Lacs County, MN: 6.32 m/s, 22,077 kWh, payback 28 years (48 mi)
- Cass County, MN: 6.38 m/s, 22,521 kWh, payback 27 years (50 mi)
Sun versus wind in Aitkin County
Aitkin 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 2,208. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 2.0 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.