Wind Turbine Payback in Itasca County, MN
Wind turbine payback in Itasca 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 Itasca County, MN averages 5.88 m/s (13.2 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 18,816 kWh a year, worth $3,093 at MN's 16.44¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 32 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Itasca County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Itasca County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.5 m/s at the hub against 5.88 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,045 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,882, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 27¢/kWh, 1.6 times what MN pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.5 m/s instead of 5.88. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MN
Itasca County is the 1,013th 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 Itasca County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.28 m/s and about 1,792 kWh. July is the weakest, 5.31 m/s and 1,245 kWh, so the best month makes 1.4 times the worst. November to March brings in 43% of the year's output in Itasca County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.95 m/s | 1,643 kWh | $270 |
| February | 6.08 m/s | 1,556 kWh | $256 |
| March | 6.04 m/s | 1,700 kWh | $279 |
| April | 6.28 m/s | 1,792 kWh | $295 |
| May | 5.93 m/s | 1,627 kWh | $267 |
| June | 5.64 m/s | 1,401 kWh | $230 |
| July | 5.31 m/s | 1,245 kWh | $205 |
| August | 5.41 m/s | 1,305 kWh | $215 |
| September | 6.04 m/s | 1,645 kWh | $270 |
| October | 6.14 m/s | 1,762 kWh | $290 |
| November | 6.01 m/s | 1,629 kWh | $268 |
| December | 5.74 m/s | 1,509 kWh | $248 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Itasca County averages 4.63 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.57 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.217, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 15,214 to 23,922 kWh a year, 57% 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 | 5.39 m/s | 15,214 kWh | 40 years |
| 30 m | 5.88 m/s | 18,821 kWh | 32 years |
| 40 m | 6.26 m/s | 21,628 kWh | 28 years |
| 50 m | 6.57 m/s | 23,922 kWh | 25 years |
Counties around Itasca County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Hubbard County, averages 6.51 m/s.
- Cass County, MN: 6.38 m/s, 22,521 kWh, payback 27 years (50 mi)
- St. Louis County, MN: 5.59 m/s, 16,689 kWh, payback 36 years (52 mi)
- Koochiching County, MN: 4.1 m/s, 7,090 kWh, payback 86 years (53 mi)
- Aitkin County, MN: 6.32 m/s, 22,077 kWh, payback 28 years (62 mi)
- Hubbard County, MN: 6.51 m/s, 23,481 kWh, payback 26 years (67 mi)
- Beltrami County, MN: 6.25 m/s, 21,558 kWh, payback 28 years (70 mi)
Sun versus wind in Itasca County
Itasca 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 1,882. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.8 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.