Wind Turbine Payback in Bayfield County, WI
Wind turbine payback in Bayfield 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 Bayfield County, WI averages 4.9 m/s (11 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 11,866 kWh a year, worth $2,261 at WI's 19.05¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 44 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Bayfield County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Bayfield County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 6.9 m/s at the hub against 4.9 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,042 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,187, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 42¢/kWh, 2.2 times what WI pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 6.9 m/s instead of 4.9. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of WI
Bayfield County is the 1,502nd 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 Bayfield County
January is the strongest month here, at 5.54 m/s and about 1,389 kWh. July is the weakest, 4.08 m/s and 596 kWh, so the best month makes 2.3 times the worst. November to March brings in 52% of the year's output in Bayfield County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.54 m/s | 1,389 kWh | $265 |
| February | 5.68 m/s | 1,332 kWh | $254 |
| March | 5.24 m/s | 1,206 kWh | $230 |
| April | 5.11 m/s | 1,093 kWh | $208 |
| May | 4.48 m/s | 784 kWh | $149 |
| June | 4.16 m/s | 610 kWh | $116 |
| July | 4.08 m/s | 596 kWh | $114 |
| August | 4.22 m/s | 658 kWh | $125 |
| September | 4.78 m/s | 913 kWh | $174 |
| October | 5.04 m/s | 1,090 kWh | $208 |
| November | 5.20 m/s | 1,142 kWh | $218 |
| December | 5.23 m/s | 1,201 kWh | $229 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Bayfield County averages 3.57 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.67 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.287, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 8,511 to 17,272 kWh a year, 103% 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 | 4.36 m/s | 8,511 kWh | 62 years |
| 30 m | 4.9 m/s | 11,845 kWh | 44 years |
| 40 m | 5.32 m/s | 14,738 kWh | 36 years |
| 50 m | 5.67 m/s | 17,272 kWh | 30 years |
Counties around Bayfield County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Washburn County, averages 5.62 m/s.
- Ashland County, WI: 4.4 m/s, 8,748 kWh, payback 60 years (24 mi)
- Douglas County, WI: 5.45 m/s, 15,677 kWh, payback 34 years (36 mi)
- Iron County, WI: 4.5 m/s, 9,339 kWh, payback 56 years (48 mi)
- Sawyer County, WI: 4.85 m/s, 11,537 kWh, payback 46 years (53 mi)
- Washburn County, WI: 5.62 m/s, 16,907 kWh, payback 31 years (59 mi)
- Lake County, MN: 4.46 m/s, 9,100 kWh, payback 67 years (62 mi)
Sun versus wind in Bayfield County
Bayfield 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 1,187. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.1 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.