Wind Turbine Payback in Chippewa County, WI
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, WI averages 5.9 m/s (13.2 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 18,964 kWh a year, worth $3,613 at WI's 19.05¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 28 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, 6.9 m/s at the hub against 5.9 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,092 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,896, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 26¢/kWh, 1.4 times what WI pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 6.9 m/s instead of 5.9. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of WI
Chippewa County is the 988th 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 Chippewa County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.57 m/s and about 1,964 kWh. July is the weakest, 4.96 m/s and 1,043 kWh, so the best month makes 1.9 times the worst. November to March brings in 46% of the year's output in Chippewa County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.17 m/s | 1,783 kWh | $340 |
| February | 6.41 m/s | 1,742 kWh | $332 |
| March | 6.25 m/s | 1,834 kWh | $349 |
| April | 6.57 m/s | 1,964 kWh | $374 |
| May | 6.00 m/s | 1,671 kWh | $318 |
| June | 5.51 m/s | 1,322 kWh | $252 |
| July | 4.96 m/s | 1,043 kWh | $199 |
| August | 5.02 m/s | 1,074 kWh | $205 |
| September | 5.80 m/s | 1,498 kWh | $285 |
| October | 6.19 m/s | 1,795 kWh | $342 |
| November | 6.11 m/s | 1,688 kWh | $322 |
| December | 5.92 m/s | 1,621 kWh | $309 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Chippewa County averages 4.6 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.62 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.226, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 15,189 to 24,289 kWh a year, 60% 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 | 5.38 m/s | 15,189 kWh | 35 years |
| 30 m | 5.9 m/s | 18,951 kWh | 28 years |
| 40 m | 6.29 m/s | 21,887 kWh | 24 years |
| 50 m | 6.62 m/s | 24,289 kWh | 22 years |
Counties around Chippewa County
5 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Barron County, averages 6.03 m/s.
- Eau Claire County, WI: 6 m/s, 19,704 kWh, payback 27 years (24 mi)
- Rusk County, WI: 5.19 m/s, 13,837 kWh, payback 38 years (29 mi)
- Dunn County, WI: 6.01 m/s, 19,778 kWh, payback 27 years (31 mi)
- Barron County, WI: 6.03 m/s, 19,926 kWh, payback 26 years (38 mi)
- Taylor County, WI: 5.99 m/s, 19,630 kWh, payback 27 years (39 mi)
- Clark County, WI: 6.02 m/s, 19,852 kWh, payback 26 years (40 mi)
Sun versus wind in Chippewa County
Chippewa County gets 3.74 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,092 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,896. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.7 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.