Wind Turbine Payback in Hubbard County, MN
Wind turbine payback in Hubbard 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 Hubbard County, MN averages 6.51 m/s (14.6 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 23,481 kWh a year, worth $3,860 at MN's 16.44¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 26 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Hubbard County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Hubbard County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.5 m/s at the hub against 6.51 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,083 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,348, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 21¢/kWh, 1.3 times what MN pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.5 m/s instead of 6.51. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MN
Hubbard County is the 193rd 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 Hubbard County
October is the strongest month here, at 6.86 m/s and about 2,211 kWh. July is the weakest, 5.66 m/s and 1,462 kWh, so the best month makes 1.5 times the worst. November to March brings in 44% of the year's output in Hubbard County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.78 m/s | 2,161 kWh | $355 |
| February | 6.80 m/s | 1,967 kWh | $323 |
| March | 6.71 m/s | 2,116 kWh | $348 |
| April | 6.98 m/s | 2,209 kWh | $363 |
| May | 6.62 m/s | 2,060 kWh | $339 |
| June | 6.14 m/s | 1,704 kWh | $280 |
| July | 5.66 m/s | 1,462 kWh | $240 |
| August | 5.80 m/s | 1,546 kWh | $254 |
| September | 6.59 m/s | 1,978 kWh | $325 |
| October | 6.86 m/s | 2,211 kWh | $363 |
| November | 6.71 m/s | 2,048 kWh | $337 |
| December | 6.48 m/s | 1,976 kWh | $325 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Hubbard County averages 5.19 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.23 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.206, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 19,603 to 28,671 kWh a year, 46% 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 | 5.99 m/s | 19,603 kWh | 31 years |
| 30 m | 6.51 m/s | 23,465 kWh | 26 years |
| 40 m | 6.91 m/s | 26,362 kWh | 23 years |
| 50 m | 7.23 m/s | 28,671 kWh | 21 years |
Counties around Hubbard County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Becker County, averages 6.62 m/s.
- Cass County, MN: 6.38 m/s, 22,521 kWh, payback 27 years (29 mi)
- Wadena County, MN: 6.45 m/s, 23,038 kWh, payback 26 years (35 mi)
- Clearwater County, MN: 6.56 m/s, 23,849 kWh, payback 26 years (40 mi)
- Becker County, MN: 6.62 m/s, 24,289 kWh, payback 25 years (41 mi)
- Mahnomen County, MN: 6.56 m/s, 23,849 kWh, payback 26 years (45 mi)
- Beltrami County, MN: 6.25 m/s, 21,558 kWh, payback 28 years (54 mi)
Sun versus wind in Hubbard County
Hubbard County gets 3.71 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,083 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,348. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 2.2 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.