Wind Turbine Payback in Iosco County, MI
Wind turbine payback in Iosco 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 Iosco County, MI averages 6.68 m/s (14.9 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 24,728 kWh a year, worth $5,373 at MI's 21.73¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 19 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Iosco 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 1,066 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,473, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power already costs enough here: break-even is 20¢/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
Iosco County is the 70th 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 Iosco County
December is the strongest month here, at 7.80 m/s and about 2,762 kWh. July is the weakest, 5.09 m/s and 1,117 kWh, so the best month makes 2.5 times the worst. November to March brings in 52% of the year's output in Iosco County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 7.74 m/s | 2,731 kWh | $593 |
| February | 7.61 m/s | 2,401 kWh | $522 |
| March | 7.02 m/s | 2,308 kWh | $502 |
| April | 7.16 m/s | 2,315 kWh | $503 |
| May | 6.15 m/s | 1,766 kWh | $384 |
| June | 5.39 m/s | 1,251 kWh | $272 |
| July | 5.09 m/s | 1,117 kWh | $243 |
| August | 5.34 m/s | 1,265 kWh | $275 |
| September | 6.02 m/s | 1,630 kWh | $354 |
| October | 7.27 m/s | 2,458 kWh | $534 |
| November | 7.70 m/s | 2,618 kWh | $569 |
| December | 7.80 m/s | 2,762 kWh | $600 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Iosco County averages 5.68 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.21 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.148, typical of very open, smooth ground where height adds little. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 21,897 to 28,531 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 | 6.3 m/s | 21,897 kWh | 21 years |
| 30 m | 6.69 m/s | 24,765 kWh | 19 years |
| 40 m | 6.98 m/s | 26,870 kWh | 17 years |
| 50 m | 7.21 m/s | 28,531 kWh | 16 years |
Counties around Iosco County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Alpena County, averages 6.98 m/s.
- Alcona County, MI: 6.68 m/s, 24,728 kWh, payback 19 years (19 mi)
- Arenac County, MI: 6.06 m/s, 20,149 kWh, payback 23 years (30 mi)
- Alpena County, MI: 6.98 m/s, 26,900 kWh, payback 17 years (35 mi)
- Ogemaw County, MI: 4.1 m/s, 7,090 kWh, payback 65 years (37 mi)
- Huron County, MI: 6.85 m/s, 25,964 kWh, payback 18 years (42 mi)
- Oscoda County, MI: 4.1 m/s, 7,090 kWh, payback 65 years (42 mi)
Sun versus wind in Iosco County
Iosco County gets 3.65 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,066 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,473. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 2.3 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.