Wind Turbine Payback in Gogebic County, MI
Wind turbine payback in Gogebic 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 Gogebic County, MI averages 4.5 m/s (10.1 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 9,339 kWh a year, worth $2,029 at MI's 21.73¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 49 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Gogebic County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Gogebic County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 6.4 m/s at the hub against 4.5 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,040 kWh a year here against the turbine's 934, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 54¢/kWh, 2.5 times what MI pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 6.4 m/s instead of 4.5. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MI
Gogebic County is the 1,743rd 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 Gogebic County
January is the strongest month here, at 5.33 m/s and about 1,258 kWh. June is the weakest, 3.64 m/s and 404 kWh, so the best month makes 3.1 times the worst. November to March brings in 57% of the year's output in Gogebic County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.33 m/s | 1,258 kWh | $273 |
| February | 5.39 m/s | 1,169 kWh | $254 |
| March | 4.91 m/s | 1,015 kWh | $221 |
| April | 4.66 m/s | 847 kWh | $184 |
| May | 4.04 m/s | 574 kWh | $125 |
| June | 3.64 m/s | 404 kWh | $88 |
| July | 3.62 m/s | 409 kWh | $89 |
| August | 3.75 m/s | 459 kWh | $100 |
| September | 4.27 m/s | 656 kWh | $143 |
| October | 4.55 m/s | 821 kWh | $178 |
| November | 4.86 m/s | 954 kWh | $207 |
| December | 5.01 m/s | 1,068 kWh | $232 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Gogebic County averages 3.18 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.28 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.315, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 6,359 to 14,467 kWh a year, 128% 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 | 3.96 m/s | 6,359 kWh | 72 years |
| 30 m | 4.5 m/s | 9,310 kWh | 49 years |
| 40 m | 4.92 m/s | 12,010 kWh | 38 years |
| 50 m | 5.28 m/s | 14,467 kWh | 32 years |
Counties around Gogebic County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Oneida County, averages 5.8 m/s.
- Iron County, WI: 4.5 m/s, 9,339 kWh, payback 56 years (25 mi)
- Vilas County, WI: 4.67 m/s, 10,382 kWh, payback 51 years (33 mi)
- Ontonagon County, MI: 5.67 m/s, 17,272 kWh, payback 27 years (34 mi)
- Ashland County, WI: 4.4 m/s, 8,748 kWh, payback 60 years (43 mi)
- Oneida County, WI: 5.8 m/s, 18,226 kWh, payback 29 years (55 mi)
- Price County, WI: 5.7 m/s, 17,492 kWh, payback 30 years (62 mi)
Sun versus wind in Gogebic County
Gogebic County gets 3.56 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,040 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 934. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.1 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.