Wind Turbine Payback in Clare County, MI
Wind turbine payback in Clare 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 Clare County, MI averages 5.26 m/s (11.8 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 14,327 kWh a year, worth $3,113 at MI's 21.73¢/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 Clare County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Clare County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 6.4 m/s at the hub against 5.26 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,095 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,433, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 35¢/kWh, 1.6 times what MI pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 6.4 m/s instead of 5.26. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MI
Clare County is the 1,339th 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 Clare County
January is the strongest month here, at 5.94 m/s and about 1,636 kWh. July is the weakest, 4.24 m/s and 664 kWh, so the best month makes 2.5 times the worst. November to March brings in 52% of the year's output in Clare County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.94 m/s | 1,636 kWh | $356 |
| February | 6.11 m/s | 1,572 kWh | $342 |
| March | 5.73 m/s | 1,506 kWh | $327 |
| April | 5.84 m/s | 1,520 kWh | $330 |
| May | 5.11 m/s | 1,131 kWh | $246 |
| June | 4.52 m/s | 779 kWh | $169 |
| July | 4.24 m/s | 664 kWh | $144 |
| August | 4.33 m/s | 710 kWh | $154 |
| September | 4.69 m/s | 863 kWh | $188 |
| October | 5.40 m/s | 1,302 kWh | $283 |
| November | 5.61 m/s | 1,384 kWh | $301 |
| December | 5.71 m/s | 1,495 kWh | $325 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Clare County averages 3.9 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.05 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.273, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 10,641 to 20,075 kWh a year, 89% 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 | 4.71 m/s | 10,641 kWh | 43 years |
| 30 m | 5.26 m/s | 14,344 kWh | 32 years |
| 40 m | 5.69 m/s | 17,436 kWh | 26 years |
| 50 m | 6.05 m/s | 20,075 kWh | 23 years |
Counties around Clare County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Isabella County, averages 6.01 m/s.
- Gladwin County, MI: 4.8 m/s, 11,212 kWh, payback 41 years (22 mi)
- Isabella County, MI: 6.01 m/s, 19,778 kWh, payback 23 years (24 mi)
- Osceola County, MI: 5.54 m/s, 16,326 kWh, payback 28 years (24 mi)
- Missaukee County, MI: 5.29 m/s, 14,538 kWh, payback 32 years (26 mi)
- Roscommon County, MI: 4.1 m/s, 7,090 kWh, payback 65 years (27 mi)
- Midland County, MI: 5.82 m/s, 18,374 kWh, payback 25 years (33 mi)
Sun versus wind in Clare County
Clare County gets 3.75 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,095 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,433. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.3 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.