Wind Turbine Payback in Bay County, MI
Wind turbine payback in Bay 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 Bay County, MI averages 6.17 m/s (13.8 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 20,965 kWh a year, worth $4,556 at MI's 21.73¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 22 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Bay County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Bay County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 6.4 m/s at the hub against 6.17 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,080 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,097, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 24¢/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 6.17. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MI
Bay County is the 608th 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 Bay County
January is the strongest month here, at 6.98 m/s and about 2,285 kWh. July is the weakest, 4.88 m/s and 994 kWh, so the best month makes 2.3 times the worst. November to March brings in 51% of the year's output in Bay County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.98 m/s | 2,285 kWh | $497 |
| February | 6.95 m/s | 2,049 kWh | $445 |
| March | 6.58 m/s | 2,036 kWh | $442 |
| April | 6.79 m/s | 2,100 kWh | $456 |
| May | 5.92 m/s | 1,623 kWh | $353 |
| June | 5.30 m/s | 1,200 kWh | $261 |
| July | 4.88 m/s | 994 kWh | $216 |
| August | 4.91 m/s | 1,015 kWh | $221 |
| September | 5.51 m/s | 1,322 kWh | $287 |
| October | 6.61 m/s | 2,058 kWh | $447 |
| November | 6.86 m/s | 2,137 kWh | $464 |
| December | 6.86 m/s | 2,214 kWh | $481 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Bay County averages 4.92 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.86 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.207, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 17,307 to 26,036 kWh a year, 50% 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 | 5.67 m/s | 17,307 kWh | 27 years |
| 30 m | 6.17 m/s | 20,977 kWh | 22 years |
| 40 m | 6.55 m/s | 23,778 kWh | 19 years |
| 50 m | 6.86 m/s | 26,036 kWh | 18 years |
Counties around Bay County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Tuscola County, averages 6.5 m/s.
- Midland County, MI: 5.82 m/s, 18,374 kWh, payback 25 years (20 mi)
- Saginaw County, MI: 6.17 m/s, 20,965 kWh, payback 22 years (26 mi)
- Arenac County, MI: 6.06 m/s, 20,149 kWh, payback 23 years (26 mi)
- Gladwin County, MI: 4.8 m/s, 11,212 kWh, payback 41 years (29 mi)
- Tuscola County, MI: 6.5 m/s, 23,407 kWh, payback 20 years (31 mi)
- Gratiot County, MI: 5.82 m/s, 18,374 kWh, payback 25 years (42 mi)
Sun versus wind in Bay County
Bay County gets 3.7 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,080 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,097. 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.