Wind Turbine Payback in Crawford County, MI
Wind turbine payback in Crawford 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 Crawford County, MI averages 4.1 m/s (9.2 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 7,090 kWh a year, worth $1,541 at MI's 21.73¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 65 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Crawford County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Crawford County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 6.4 m/s at the hub against 4.1 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,072 kWh a year here against the turbine's 709, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 71¢/kWh, 3.2 times what MI pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 6.4 m/s instead of 4.1. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MI
Crawford County is the 1,994th 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 Crawford County
February is the strongest month here, at 4.96 m/s and about 939 kWh. July is the weakest, 3.31 m/s and 307 kWh, so the best month makes 3.1 times the worst. November to March brings in 56% of the year's output in Crawford County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.73 m/s | 916 kWh | $199 |
| February | 4.96 m/s | 939 kWh | $204 |
| March | 4.59 m/s | 842 kWh | $183 |
| April | 4.55 m/s | 790 kWh | $172 |
| May | 3.85 m/s | 498 kWh | $108 |
| June | 3.41 m/s | 327 kWh | $71 |
| July | 3.31 m/s | 307 kWh | $67 |
| August | 3.42 m/s | 341 kWh | $74 |
| September | 3.63 m/s | 401 kWh | $87 |
| October | 4.08 m/s | 595 kWh | $129 |
| November | 4.29 m/s | 668 kWh | $145 |
| December | 4.46 m/s | 774 kWh | $168 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Crawford County averages 2.69 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.99 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.384, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 4,368 to 12,467 kWh a year, 185% 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 | 3.51 m/s | 4,368 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 4.1 m/s | 7,096 kWh | 65 years |
| 40 m | 4.58 m/s | 9,825 kWh | 47 years |
| 50 m | 4.99 m/s | 12,467 kWh | 37 years |
Counties around Crawford County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Kalkaska County, averages 5.29 m/s.
- Kalkaska County, MI: 5.29 m/s, 14,538 kWh, payback 32 years (23 mi)
- Roscommon County, MI: 4.1 m/s, 7,090 kWh, payback 65 years (24 mi)
- Otsego County, MI: 4.66 m/s, 10,320 kWh, payback 45 years (24 mi)
- Oscoda County, MI: 4.1 m/s, 7,090 kWh, payback 65 years (24 mi)
- Montmorency County, MI: 4.66 m/s, 10,320 kWh, payback 45 years (33 mi)
- Ogemaw County, MI: 4.1 m/s, 7,090 kWh, payback 65 years (34 mi)
Sun versus wind in Crawford County
Crawford County gets 3.67 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,072 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 709. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.5 times as much here as the turbine. 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.