Wind Turbine Payback in Chippewa County, MI
Wind turbine payback in Chippewa 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 Chippewa County, MI averages 4.74 m/s (10.6 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 10,826 kWh a year, worth $2,352 at MI's 21.73¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 43 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Chippewa County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Chippewa County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 6.4 m/s at the hub against 4.74 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,007 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,083, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 46¢/kWh, 2.1 times what MI pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 6.4 m/s instead of 4.74. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MI
Chippewa County is the 1,592nd 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 Chippewa County
February is the strongest month here, at 5.58 m/s and about 1,277 kWh. June is the weakest, 3.77 m/s and 450 kWh, so the best month makes 2.8 times the worst. November to March brings in 55% of the year's output in Chippewa County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.29 m/s | 1,237 kWh | $269 |
| February | 5.58 m/s | 1,277 kWh | $277 |
| March | 5.20 m/s | 1,180 kWh | $256 |
| April | 5.05 m/s | 1,057 kWh | $230 |
| May | 4.32 m/s | 705 kWh | $153 |
| June | 3.77 m/s | 450 kWh | $98 |
| July | 3.80 m/s | 478 kWh | $104 |
| August | 4.05 m/s | 580 kWh | $126 |
| September | 4.48 m/s | 757 kWh | $164 |
| October | 4.95 m/s | 1,037 kWh | $225 |
| November | 5.24 m/s | 1,167 kWh | $254 |
| December | 5.26 m/s | 1,216 kWh | $264 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Chippewa County averages 3.57 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.41 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.258, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 8,014 to 15,390 kWh a year, 92% 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 | 4.27 m/s | 8,014 kWh | 57 years |
| 30 m | 4.74 m/s | 10,838 kWh | 43 years |
| 40 m | 5.11 m/s | 13,265 kWh | 35 years |
| 50 m | 5.41 m/s | 15,390 kWh | 30 years |
Counties around Chippewa County
6 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Charlevoix County, averages 7.15 m/s.
- Mackinac County, MI: 5.26 m/s, 14,327 kWh, payback 32 years (39 mi)
- Luce County, MI: 4.89 m/s, 11,800 kWh, payback 39 years (49 mi)
- Emmet County, MI: 6.4 m/s, 22,669 kWh, payback 20 years (55 mi)
- Cheboygan County, MI: 5.44 m/s, 15,605 kWh, payback 30 years (58 mi)
- Charlevoix County, MI: 7.15 m/s, 28,109 kWh, payback 16 years (69 mi)
- Schoolcraft County, MI: 5.88 m/s, 18,816 kWh, payback 25 years (83 mi)
Sun versus wind in Chippewa County
Chippewa County gets 3.45 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,007 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,083. 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.