Wind Turbine Payback in Ashland County, WI
Wind turbine payback in Ashland 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 Ashland County, WI averages 4.4 m/s (9.8 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 8,748 kWh a year, worth $1,667 at WI's 19.05¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 60 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Ashland County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Ashland County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 6.9 m/s at the hub against 4.4 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,042 kWh a year here against the turbine's 875, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 57¢/kWh, 3.0 times what WI pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 6.9 m/s instead of 4.4. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of WI
Ashland County is the 1,818th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in WI is Manitowoc County at 7.32 m/s, payback 18 years.
Month by month in Ashland County
January is the strongest month here, at 5.22 m/s and about 1,193 kWh. June is the weakest, 3.55 m/s and 373 kWh, so the best month makes 3.2 times the worst. November to March brings in 57% of the year's output in Ashland County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.22 m/s | 1,193 kWh | $227 |
| February | 5.31 m/s | 1,123 kWh | $214 |
| March | 4.81 m/s | 955 kWh | $182 |
| April | 4.55 m/s | 793 kWh | $151 |
| May | 3.91 m/s | 520 kWh | $99 |
| June | 3.55 m/s | 373 kWh | $71 |
| July | 3.57 m/s | 391 kWh | $74 |
| August | 3.71 m/s | 443 kWh | $84 |
| September | 4.19 m/s | 621 kWh | $118 |
| October | 4.46 m/s | 772 kWh | $147 |
| November | 4.72 m/s | 879 kWh | $167 |
| December | 4.88 m/s | 997 kWh | $190 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Ashland County averages 3.08 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.19 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.324, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 5,880 to 13,837 kWh a year, 135% 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 | 3.86 m/s | 5,880 kWh | 89 years |
| 30 m | 4.4 m/s | 8,739 kWh | 60 years |
| 40 m | 4.83 m/s | 11,394 kWh | 46 years |
| 50 m | 5.19 m/s | 13,837 kWh | 38 years |
Counties around Ashland County
6 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Price County, averages 5.7 m/s.
- Bayfield County, WI: 4.9 m/s, 11,866 kWh, payback 44 years (24 mi)
- Iron County, WI: 4.5 m/s, 9,339 kWh, payback 56 years (25 mi)
- Gogebic County, MI: 4.5 m/s, 9,339 kWh, payback 49 years (43 mi)
- Sawyer County, WI: 4.85 m/s, 11,537 kWh, payback 46 years (52 mi)
- Douglas County, WI: 5.45 m/s, 15,677 kWh, payback 34 years (58 mi)
- Price County, WI: 5.7 m/s, 17,492 kWh, payback 30 years (62 mi)
Sun versus wind in Ashland County
Ashland County gets 3.57 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,042 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 875. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.2 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.