Wind Turbine Payback in Jackson County, MI
Wind turbine payback in Jackson 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 Jackson County, MI averages 6.12 m/s (13.7 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 20,594 kWh a year, worth $4,475 at MI's 21.73¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 22 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Jackson County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Jackson County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 6.4 m/s at the hub against 6.12 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,107 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,059, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 24¢/kWh, 1.1 times what MI pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 6.4 m/s instead of 6.12. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MI
Jackson County is the 664th 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 Jackson County
January is the strongest month here, at 6.97 m/s and about 2,280 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.78 m/s and 939 kWh, so the best month makes 2.4 times the worst. November to March brings in 51% of the year's output in Jackson County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.97 m/s | 2,280 kWh | $495 |
| February | 6.91 m/s | 2,025 kWh | $440 |
| March | 6.69 m/s | 2,105 kWh | $457 |
| April | 6.92 m/s | 2,175 kWh | $473 |
| May | 6.01 m/s | 1,679 kWh | $365 |
| June | 5.33 m/s | 1,218 kWh | $265 |
| July | 4.84 m/s | 974 kWh | $212 |
| August | 4.78 m/s | 939 kWh | $204 |
| September | 5.35 m/s | 1,229 kWh | $267 |
| October | 6.40 m/s | 1,926 kWh | $419 |
| November | 6.69 m/s | 2,037 kWh | $443 |
| December | 6.70 m/s | 2,116 kWh | $460 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Jackson County averages 4.8 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.86 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.222, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 16,742 to 26,036 kWh a year, 56% 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 | 5.6 m/s | 16,742 kWh | 28 years |
| 30 m | 6.12 m/s | 20,628 kWh | 22 years |
| 40 m | 6.53 m/s | 23,617 kWh | 20 years |
| 50 m | 6.86 m/s | 26,036 kWh | 18 years |
Counties around Jackson County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Ingham County, averages 6.17 m/s.
- Ingham County, MI: 6.17 m/s, 20,965 kWh, payback 22 years (25 mi)
- Hillsdale County, MI: 6.12 m/s, 20,594 kWh, payback 22 years (25 mi)
- Washtenaw County, MI: 6.09 m/s, 20,371 kWh, payback 23 years (30 mi)
- Lenawee County, MI: 6.12 m/s, 20,594 kWh, payback 22 years (30 mi)
- Calhoun County, MI: 6.1 m/s, 20,446 kWh, payback 23 years (30 mi)
- Eaton County, MI: 6.11 m/s, 20,520 kWh, payback 22 years (32 mi)
Sun versus wind in Jackson County
Jackson County gets 3.79 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,107 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,059. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.9 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.