Wind Turbine Payback in Carver County, MN
Wind turbine payback in Carver 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 Carver County, MN averages 6.05 m/s (13.5 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 20,075 kWh a year, worth $3,300 at MN's 16.44¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 30 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Carver County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Carver County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.5 m/s at the hub against 6.05 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,127 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,008, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 25¢/kWh, 1.5 times what MN pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.5 m/s instead of 6.05. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MN
Carver County is the 769th 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 Carver County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.66 m/s and about 2,023 kWh. July is the weakest, 5.04 m/s and 1,086 kWh, so the best month makes 1.9 times the worst. November to March brings in 45% of the year's output in Carver County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.37 m/s | 1,906 kWh | $313 |
| February | 6.42 m/s | 1,752 kWh | $288 |
| March | 6.38 m/s | 1,911 kWh | $314 |
| April | 6.66 m/s | 2,023 kWh | $333 |
| May | 6.23 m/s | 1,821 kWh | $299 |
| June | 5.64 m/s | 1,399 kWh | $230 |
| July | 5.04 m/s | 1,086 kWh | $179 |
| August | 5.06 m/s | 1,102 kWh | $181 |
| September | 6.02 m/s | 1,632 kWh | $268 |
| October | 6.39 m/s | 1,917 kWh | $315 |
| November | 6.31 m/s | 1,806 kWh | $297 |
| December | 6.11 m/s | 1,743 kWh | $287 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Carver County averages 4.74 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.77 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.221, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 16,246 to 25,384 kWh a year, 56% 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 | 5.53 m/s | 16,246 kWh | 37 years |
| 30 m | 6.05 m/s | 20,055 kWh | 30 years |
| 40 m | 6.44 m/s | 22,996 kWh | 27 years |
| 50 m | 6.77 m/s | 25,384 kWh | 24 years |
Counties around Carver County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Sibley County, averages 6.27 m/s.
- Scott County, MN: 6.23 m/s, 21,410 kWh, payback 28 years (18 mi)
- Hennepin County, MN: 6.05 m/s, 20,075 kWh, payback 30 years (20 mi)
- McLeod County, MN: 6.25 m/s, 21,558 kWh, payback 28 years (23 mi)
- Wright County, MN: 6.05 m/s, 20,075 kWh, payback 30 years (26 mi)
- Sibley County, MN: 6.27 m/s, 21,706 kWh, payback 28 years (27 mi)
- Le Sueur County, MN: 6.23 m/s, 21,410 kWh, payback 28 years (31 mi)
Sun versus wind in Carver County
Carver County gets 3.86 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,127 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,008. 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.