Wind Turbine Payback in Huron County, MI
Wind turbine payback in Huron County
Only just. The money comes back late in the turbine's life.
At 30 m, the height a home turbine tower usually reaches, the wind in Huron County, MI averages 6.85 m/s (15.3 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 25,964 kWh a year, worth $5,642 at MI's 21.73¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 18 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Huron County
It is close enough that your own site decides it. If you have open land with no trees or buildings upwind, ask an installer to log the wind at 30 m or higher; anything above 6.4 m/s pays back in time. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,045 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,596, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power already costs enough here: break-even is 19¢/kWh and MI pays 21.73¢.
- The wind clears the break-even speed of 6.4 m/s at today's price.
Against the rest of MI
Huron County is the 27th 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 Huron County
December is the strongest month here, at 8.03 m/s and about 2,890 kWh. July is the weakest, 5.20 m/s and 1,179 kWh, so the best month makes 2.5 times the worst. November to March brings in 52% of the year's output in Huron County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 7.97 m/s | 2,855 kWh | $620 |
| February | 7.74 m/s | 2,468 kWh | $536 |
| March | 7.17 m/s | 2,399 kWh | $521 |
| April | 7.34 m/s | 2,417 kWh | $525 |
| May | 6.32 m/s | 1,873 kWh | $407 |
| June | 5.59 m/s | 1,369 kWh | $297 |
| July | 5.20 m/s | 1,179 kWh | $256 |
| August | 5.41 m/s | 1,307 kWh | $284 |
| September | 6.13 m/s | 1,700 kWh | $369 |
| October | 7.51 m/s | 2,600 kWh | $565 |
| November | 7.93 m/s | 2,743 kWh | $596 |
| December | 8.03 m/s | 2,890 kWh | $628 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Huron County averages 5.81 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.4 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.150, typical of very open, smooth ground where height adds little. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 23,036 to 29,851 kWh a year, 30% 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 | 6.45 m/s | 23,036 kWh | 20 years |
| 30 m | 6.85 m/s | 25,994 kWh | 18 years |
| 40 m | 7.16 m/s | 28,154 kWh | 16 years |
| 50 m | 7.4 m/s | 29,851 kWh | 15 years |
Counties around Huron County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Sanilac County, averages 7.01 m/s.
- Sanilac County, MI: 7.01 m/s, 27,114 kWh, payback 17 years (33 mi)
- Tuscola County, MI: 6.5 m/s, 23,407 kWh, payback 20 years (41 mi)
- Iosco County, MI: 6.68 m/s, 24,728 kWh, payback 19 years (42 mi)
- Arenac County, MI: 6.06 m/s, 20,149 kWh, payback 23 years (45 mi)
- Alcona County, MI: 6.68 m/s, 24,728 kWh, payback 19 years (56 mi)
- Bay County, MI: 6.17 m/s, 20,965 kWh, payback 22 years (58 mi)
Sun versus wind in Huron County
Huron County gets 3.58 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,045 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,596. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 2.5 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.