Wind Turbine Payback in Gladwin County, MI
Wind turbine payback in Gladwin 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 Gladwin County, MI averages 4.8 m/s (10.7 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 11,212 kWh a year, worth $2,436 at MI's 21.73¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 41 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Gladwin County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Gladwin County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 6.4 m/s at the hub against 4.8 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,095 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,121, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 45¢/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 4.8. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MI
Gladwin County is the 1,563rd 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 Gladwin County
January is the strongest month here, at 5.44 m/s and about 1,328 kWh. July is the weakest, 3.86 m/s and 499 kWh, so the best month makes 2.7 times the worst. November to March brings in 53% of the year's output in Gladwin County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.44 m/s | 1,328 kWh | $289 |
| February | 5.60 m/s | 1,285 kWh | $279 |
| March | 5.26 m/s | 1,219 kWh | $265 |
| April | 5.37 m/s | 1,240 kWh | $269 |
| May | 4.63 m/s | 860 kWh | $187 |
| June | 4.10 m/s | 581 kWh | $126 |
| July | 3.86 m/s | 499 kWh | $108 |
| August | 3.94 m/s | 534 kWh | $116 |
| September | 4.23 m/s | 642 kWh | $140 |
| October | 4.91 m/s | 1,015 kWh | $221 |
| November | 5.08 m/s | 1,077 kWh | $234 |
| December | 5.19 m/s | 1,174 kWh | $255 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Gladwin County averages 3.46 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.59 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.298, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 7,921 to 16,689 kWh a year, 111% 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 | 4.25 m/s | 7,921 kWh | 58 years |
| 30 m | 4.8 m/s | 11,216 kWh | 41 years |
| 40 m | 5.23 m/s | 14,119 kWh | 33 years |
| 50 m | 5.59 m/s | 16,689 kWh | 28 years |
Counties around Gladwin County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Bay County, averages 6.17 m/s.
- Clare County, MI: 5.26 m/s, 14,327 kWh, payback 32 years (22 mi)
- Midland County, MI: 5.82 m/s, 18,374 kWh, payback 25 years (24 mi)
- Roscommon County, MI: 4.1 m/s, 7,090 kWh, payback 65 years (27 mi)
- Ogemaw County, MI: 4.1 m/s, 7,090 kWh, payback 65 years (27 mi)
- Bay County, MI: 6.17 m/s, 20,965 kWh, payback 22 years (29 mi)
- Arenac County, MI: 6.06 m/s, 20,149 kWh, payback 23 years (32 mi)
Sun versus wind in Gladwin County
Gladwin 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 1,121. 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.