Wind Turbine Payback in Arenac County, MI
Wind turbine payback in Arenac 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 Arenac 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 Arenac County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Arenac 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 1,066 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
Arenac 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 Arenac County
January is the strongest month here, at 6.93 m/s and about 2,253 kWh. July is the weakest, 4.72 m/s and 909 kWh, so the best month makes 2.5 times the worst. November to March brings in 52% of the year's output in Arenac County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.93 m/s | 2,253 kWh | $490 |
| February | 6.86 m/s | 2,000 kWh | $435 |
| March | 6.37 m/s | 1,909 kWh | $415 |
| April | 6.57 m/s | 1,968 kWh | $428 |
| May | 5.67 m/s | 1,470 kWh | $319 |
| June | 5.04 m/s | 1,052 kWh | $229 |
| July | 4.72 m/s | 909 kWh | $198 |
| August | 4.88 m/s | 994 kWh | $216 |
| September | 5.41 m/s | 1,266 kWh | $275 |
| October | 6.52 m/s | 2,000 kWh | $435 |
| November | 6.81 m/s | 2,110 kWh | $459 |
| December | 6.90 m/s | 2,236 kWh | $486 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Arenac County averages 4.92 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.67 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.189, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 16,830 to 24,655 kWh a year, 46% 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 | 5.61 m/s | 16,830 kWh | 27 years |
| 30 m | 6.06 m/s | 20,120 kWh | 23 years |
| 40 m | 6.39 m/s | 22,629 kWh | 20 years |
| 50 m | 6.67 m/s | 24,655 kWh | 19 years |
Counties around Arenac County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Iosco County, averages 6.68 m/s.
- Bay County, MI: 6.17 m/s, 20,965 kWh, payback 22 years (26 mi)
- Ogemaw County, MI: 4.1 m/s, 7,090 kWh, payback 65 years (28 mi)
- Iosco County, MI: 6.68 m/s, 24,728 kWh, payback 19 years (30 mi)
- Gladwin County, MI: 4.8 m/s, 11,212 kWh, payback 41 years (32 mi)
- Tuscola County, MI: 6.5 m/s, 23,407 kWh, payback 20 years (41 mi)
- Midland County, MI: 5.82 m/s, 18,374 kWh, payback 25 years (42 mi)
Sun versus wind in Arenac County
Arenac 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 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.