Wind Turbine Payback in Cook County, MN
Wind turbine payback in Cook 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 Cook County, MN averages 4.7 m/s (10.5 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 10,571 kWh a year, worth $1,738 at MN's 16.44¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 58 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Cook County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Cook County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.5 m/s at the hub against 4.7 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,022 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,057, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 47¢/kWh, 2.9 times what MN pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.5 m/s instead of 4.7. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MN
Cook County is the 1,610th 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 Cook County
January is the strongest month here, at 5.11 m/s and about 1,129 kWh. June is the weakest, 4.14 m/s and 601 kWh, so the best month makes 1.9 times the worst. November to March brings in 49% of the year's output in Cook County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.11 m/s | 1,129 kWh | $186 |
| February | 5.16 m/s | 1,048 kWh | $172 |
| March | 4.85 m/s | 981 kWh | $161 |
| April | 4.92 m/s | 987 kWh | $162 |
| May | 4.42 m/s | 753 kWh | $124 |
| June | 4.14 m/s | 601 kWh | $99 |
| July | 4.12 m/s | 610 kWh | $100 |
| August | 4.24 m/s | 665 kWh | $109 |
| September | 4.57 m/s | 801 kWh | $132 |
| October | 4.88 m/s | 996 kWh | $164 |
| November | 4.98 m/s | 1,020 kWh | $168 |
| December | 4.96 m/s | 1,045 kWh | $172 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Cook County averages 3.44 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.43 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.284, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 7,547 to 15,534 kWh a year, 106% 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 | 4.19 m/s | 7,547 kWh | 81 years |
| 30 m | 4.7 m/s | 10,551 kWh | 58 years |
| 40 m | 5.1 m/s | 13,191 kWh | 46 years |
| 50 m | 5.43 m/s | 15,534 kWh | 39 years |
Counties around Cook County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Ontonagon County, averages 5.67 m/s.
- Lake County, MN: 4.46 m/s, 9,100 kWh, payback 67 years (52 mi)
- Ontonagon County, MI: 5.67 m/s, 17,272 kWh, payback 27 years (81 mi)
- Ashland County, WI: 4.4 m/s, 8,748 kWh, payback 60 years (85 mi)
- Bayfield County, WI: 4.9 m/s, 11,866 kWh, payback 44 years (87 mi)
- Gogebic County, MI: 4.5 m/s, 9,339 kWh, payback 49 years (92 mi)
- Houghton County, MI: 5.41 m/s, 15,390 kWh, payback 30 years (95 mi)
Sun versus wind in Cook County
Cook County gets 3.5 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,022 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,057. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.0 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.