Wind Turbine Payback in Carlton County, MN
Wind turbine payback in Carlton 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 Carlton County, MN averages 5.93 m/s (13.3 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 19,186 kWh a year, worth $3,154 at MN's 16.44¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 32 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Carlton County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Carlton County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.5 m/s at the hub against 5.93 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,080 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,919, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 26¢/kWh, 1.6 times what MN pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.5 m/s instead of 5.93. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MN
Carlton County is the 950th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in MN is Lincoln County at 6.68 m/s, payback 25 years.
Month by month in Carlton County
January is the strongest month here, at 6.27 m/s and about 1,845 kWh. July is the weakest, 5.12 m/s and 1,136 kWh, so the best month makes 1.6 times the worst. November to March brings in 45% of the year's output in Carlton County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.27 m/s | 1,845 kWh | $303 |
| February | 6.43 m/s | 1,757 kWh | $289 |
| March | 6.14 m/s | 1,761 kWh | $290 |
| April | 6.37 m/s | 1,845 kWh | $303 |
| May | 5.83 m/s | 1,565 kWh | $257 |
| June | 5.50 m/s | 1,317 kWh | $217 |
| July | 5.12 m/s | 1,136 kWh | $187 |
| August | 5.27 m/s | 1,221 kWh | $201 |
| September | 5.96 m/s | 1,595 kWh | $262 |
| October | 6.19 m/s | 1,794 kWh | $295 |
| November | 6.11 m/s | 1,688 kWh | $278 |
| December | 5.94 m/s | 1,637 kWh | $269 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Carlton County averages 4.61 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.66 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.229, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 15,315 to 24,582 kWh a year, 61% 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 | 5.4 m/s | 15,315 kWh | 40 years |
| 30 m | 5.92 m/s | 19,147 kWh | 32 years |
| 40 m | 6.33 m/s | 22,138 kWh | 28 years |
| 50 m | 6.66 m/s | 24,582 kWh | 25 years |
Counties around Carlton County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Aitkin County, averages 6.32 m/s.
- Pine County, MN: 5.77 m/s, 18,006 kWh, payback 34 years (35 mi)
- Aitkin County, MN: 6.32 m/s, 22,077 kWh, payback 28 years (36 mi)
- Douglas County, WI: 5.45 m/s, 15,677 kWh, payback 34 years (38 mi)
- Burnett County, WI: 5.77 m/s, 18,006 kWh, payback 29 years (53 mi)
- Kanabec County, MN: 6.14 m/s, 20,742 kWh, payback 29 years (54 mi)
- Washburn County, WI: 5.62 m/s, 16,907 kWh, payback 31 years (65 mi)
Sun versus wind in Carlton County
Carlton 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 1,919. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.8 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.