Wind Turbine Payback in Antrim County, MI
Wind turbine payback in Antrim 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 Antrim County, MI averages 6.06 m/s (13.6 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 20,149 kWh a year, worth $4,378 at MI's 21.73¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 23 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Antrim County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Antrim County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 6.4 m/s at the hub against 6.06 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,037 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,015, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 25¢/kWh, 1.1 times what MI pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 6.4 m/s instead of 6.06. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MI
Antrim County is the 747th 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 Antrim County
January is the strongest month here, at 6.73 m/s and about 2,129 kWh. July is the weakest, 4.94 m/s and 1,028 kWh, so the best month makes 2.1 times the worst. November to March brings in 50% of the year's output in Antrim County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.73 m/s | 2,129 kWh | $463 |
| February | 6.84 m/s | 1,988 kWh | $432 |
| March | 6.40 m/s | 1,924 kWh | $418 |
| April | 6.52 m/s | 1,937 kWh | $421 |
| May | 5.76 m/s | 1,526 kWh | $332 |
| June | 5.14 m/s | 1,109 kWh | $241 |
| July | 4.94 m/s | 1,028 kWh | $223 |
| August | 5.12 m/s | 1,136 kWh | $247 |
| September | 5.66 m/s | 1,412 kWh | $307 |
| October | 6.36 m/s | 1,901 kWh | $413 |
| November | 6.65 m/s | 2,012 kWh | $437 |
| December | 6.66 m/s | 2,085 kWh | $453 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Antrim County averages 4.73 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.8 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.226, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 16,240 to 25,602 kWh a year, 58% 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 | 5.53 m/s | 16,240 kWh | 28 years |
| 30 m | 6.06 m/s | 20,138 kWh | 23 years |
| 40 m | 6.47 m/s | 23,153 kWh | 20 years |
| 50 m | 6.8 m/s | 25,602 kWh | 18 years |
Counties around Antrim County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Leelanau County, averages 7.3 m/s.
- Kalkaska County, MI: 5.29 m/s, 14,538 kWh, payback 32 years (23 mi)
- Grand Traverse County, MI: 6.23 m/s, 21,410 kWh, payback 22 years (27 mi)
- Otsego County, MI: 4.66 m/s, 10,320 kWh, payback 45 years (29 mi)
- Crawford County, MI: 4.1 m/s, 7,090 kWh, payback 65 years (36 mi)
- Emmet County, MI: 6.4 m/s, 22,669 kWh, payback 20 years (41 mi)
- Leelanau County, MI: 7.3 m/s, 29,160 kWh, payback 16 years (44 mi)
Sun versus wind in Antrim County
Antrim County gets 3.55 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,037 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,015. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.9 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.