Wind Turbine Payback in Baraga County, MI
Wind turbine payback in Baraga 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 Baraga County, MI averages 4.27 m/s (9.6 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 8,008 kWh a year, worth $1,740 at MI's 21.73¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 58 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Baraga County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Baraga County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 6.4 m/s at the hub against 4.27 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,040 kWh a year here against the turbine's 801, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 62¢/kWh, 2.9 times what MI pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 6.4 m/s instead of 4.27. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MI
Baraga County is the 1,909th 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 Baraga County
January is the strongest month here, at 5.00 m/s and about 1,066 kWh. June is the weakest, 3.49 m/s and 353 kWh, so the best month makes 3.0 times the worst. November to March brings in 56% of the year's output in Baraga County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.00 m/s | 1,066 kWh | $232 |
| February | 5.13 m/s | 1,028 kWh | $223 |
| March | 4.73 m/s | 916 kWh | $199 |
| April | 4.52 m/s | 776 kWh | $169 |
| May | 3.92 m/s | 527 kWh | $115 |
| June | 3.49 m/s | 353 kWh | $77 |
| July | 3.47 m/s | 359 kWh | $78 |
| August | 3.58 m/s | 396 kWh | $86 |
| September | 3.98 m/s | 534 kWh | $116 |
| October | 4.28 m/s | 683 kWh | $148 |
| November | 4.53 m/s | 784 kWh | $170 |
| December | 4.68 m/s | 885 kWh | $192 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Baraga County averages 2.9 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.12 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.353, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 5,187 to 13,353 kWh a year, 157% 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 | 3.71 m/s | 5,187 kWh | 89 years |
| 30 m | 4.28 m/s | 8,037 kWh | 57 years |
| 40 m | 4.73 m/s | 10,776 kWh | 43 years |
| 50 m | 5.12 m/s | 13,353 kWh | 35 years |
Counties around Baraga County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Keweenaw County, averages 7.4 m/s.
- Houghton County, MI: 5.41 m/s, 15,390 kWh, payback 30 years (25 mi)
- Marquette County, MI: 4.81 m/s, 11,276 kWh, payback 41 years (37 mi)
- Iron County, MI: 4.06 m/s, 6,883 kWh, payback 67 years (37 mi)
- Ontonagon County, MI: 5.67 m/s, 17,272 kWh, payback 27 years (44 mi)
- Keweenaw County, MI: 7.4 m/s, 29,851 kWh, payback 15 years (46 mi)
- Dickinson County, MI: 3.95 m/s, 6,329 kWh, payback 73 years (53 mi)
Sun versus wind in Baraga County
Baraga County gets 3.56 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,040 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 801. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.3 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.