Wind Turbine Payback in Alger County, MI
Wind turbine payback in Alger 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 Alger County, MI averages 5.37 m/s (12 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 15,105 kWh a year, worth $3,282 at MI's 21.73¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 31 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Alger County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Alger County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 6.4 m/s at the hub against 5.37 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,004 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,511, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 33¢/kWh, 1.5 times what MI pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 6.4 m/s instead of 5.37. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MI
Alger County is the 1,295th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in MI is Keweenaw County at 7.4 m/s, payback 15 years.
Month by month in Alger County
January is the strongest month here, at 6.55 m/s and about 2,020 kWh. June is the weakest, 4.04 m/s and 556 kWh, so the best month makes 3.6 times the worst. November to March brings in 58% of the year's output in Alger County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.55 m/s | 2,020 kWh | $439 |
| February | 6.57 m/s | 1,834 kWh | $399 |
| March | 5.92 m/s | 1,623 kWh | $353 |
| April | 5.51 m/s | 1,321 kWh | $287 |
| May | 4.71 m/s | 905 kWh | $197 |
| June | 4.04 m/s | 556 kWh | $121 |
| July | 4.05 m/s | 578 kWh | $126 |
| August | 4.28 m/s | 685 kWh | $149 |
| September | 5.03 m/s | 1,046 kWh | $227 |
| October | 5.59 m/s | 1,415 kWh | $307 |
| November | 6.05 m/s | 1,653 kWh | $359 |
| December | 6.23 m/s | 1,816 kWh | $395 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Alger County averages 4.29 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.96 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.204, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 12,158 to 19,408 kWh a year, 60% 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 | 4.94 m/s | 12,158 kWh | 38 years |
| 30 m | 5.37 m/s | 15,106 kWh | 31 years |
| 40 m | 5.69 m/s | 17,454 kWh | 26 years |
| 50 m | 5.96 m/s | 19,408 kWh | 24 years |
Counties around Alger County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Schoolcraft County, averages 5.88 m/s.
- Schoolcraft County, MI: 5.88 m/s, 18,816 kWh, payback 25 years (41 mi)
- Marquette County, MI: 4.81 m/s, 11,276 kWh, payback 41 years (45 mi)
- Delta County, MI: 4.35 m/s, 8,460 kWh, payback 54 years (51 mi)
- Luce County, MI: 4.89 m/s, 11,800 kWh, payback 39 years (54 mi)
- Dickinson County, MI: 3.95 m/s, 6,329 kWh, payback 73 years (68 mi)
- Mackinac County, MI: 5.26 m/s, 14,327 kWh, payback 32 years (69 mi)
Sun versus wind in Alger County
Alger County gets 3.44 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,004 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,511. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.5 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.