Wind Turbine Payback in Kanabec County, MN
Wind turbine payback in Kanabec 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 Kanabec County, MN averages 6.14 m/s (13.7 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 20,742 kWh a year, worth $3,410 at MN's 16.44¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 29 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Kanabec County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Kanabec County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.5 m/s at the hub against 6.14 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,110 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,074, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 24¢/kWh, 1.5 times what MN pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.5 m/s instead of 6.14. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MN
Kanabec County is the 646th 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 Kanabec County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.70 m/s and about 2,046 kWh. July is the weakest, 5.23 m/s and 1,198 kWh, so the best month makes 1.7 times the worst. November to March brings in 44% of the year's output in Kanabec County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.43 m/s | 1,941 kWh | $319 |
| February | 6.55 m/s | 1,824 kWh | $300 |
| March | 6.39 m/s | 1,919 kWh | $315 |
| April | 6.70 m/s | 2,046 kWh | $336 |
| May | 6.26 m/s | 1,835 kWh | $302 |
| June | 5.76 m/s | 1,471 kWh | $242 |
| July | 5.23 m/s | 1,198 kWh | $197 |
| August | 5.35 m/s | 1,273 kWh | $209 |
| September | 6.18 m/s | 1,726 kWh | $284 |
| October | 6.49 m/s | 1,981 kWh | $326 |
| November | 6.32 m/s | 1,814 kWh | $298 |
| December | 6.09 m/s | 1,728 kWh | $284 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Kanabec County averages 4.82 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.87 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.220, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 16,877 to 26,109 kWh a year, 55% 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 | 5.62 m/s | 16,877 kWh | 36 years |
| 30 m | 6.14 m/s | 20,740 kWh | 29 years |
| 40 m | 6.54 m/s | 23,708 kWh | 26 years |
| 50 m | 6.87 m/s | 26,109 kWh | 23 years |
Counties around Kanabec County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Mille Lacs County, averages 6.32 m/s.
- Mille Lacs County, MN: 6.32 m/s, 22,077 kWh, payback 28 years (16 mi)
- Isanti County, MN: 5.96 m/s, 19,408 kWh, payback 31 years (27 mi)
- Pine County, MN: 5.77 m/s, 18,006 kWh, payback 34 years (28 mi)
- Chisago County, MN: 5.96 m/s, 19,408 kWh, payback 31 years (36 mi)
- Benton County, MN: 6.13 m/s, 20,668 kWh, payback 29 years (38 mi)
- Sherburne County, MN: 6.13 m/s, 20,668 kWh, payback 29 years (41 mi)
Sun versus wind in Kanabec County
Kanabec County gets 3.8 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,110 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,074. 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.