Wind Turbine Payback in Kenosha County, WI
Wind turbine payback in Kenosha 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 Kenosha County, WI averages 6.25 m/s (14 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 21,558 kWh a year, worth $4,107 at WI's 19.05¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 24 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Kenosha County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Kenosha County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 6.9 m/s at the hub against 6.25 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,072 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,156, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 23¢/kWh, 1.2 times what WI pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 6.9 m/s instead of 6.25. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of WI
Kenosha County is the 528th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in WI is Manitowoc County at 7.32 m/s, payback 18 years.
Month by month in Kenosha County
January is the strongest month here, at 7.05 m/s and about 2,327 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.80 m/s and 951 kWh, so the best month makes 2.4 times the worst. November to March brings in 50% of the year's output in Kenosha County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 7.05 m/s | 2,327 kWh | $443 |
| February | 6.99 m/s | 2,067 kWh | $394 |
| March | 6.74 m/s | 2,140 kWh | $408 |
| April | 6.98 m/s | 2,210 kWh | $421 |
| May | 6.19 m/s | 1,792 kWh | $341 |
| June | 5.43 m/s | 1,275 kWh | $243 |
| July | 4.93 m/s | 1,026 kWh | $195 |
| August | 4.80 m/s | 951 kWh | $181 |
| September | 5.67 m/s | 1,419 kWh | $270 |
| October | 6.59 m/s | 2,046 kWh | $390 |
| November | 6.91 m/s | 2,167 kWh | $413 |
| December | 6.77 m/s | 2,157 kWh | $411 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Kenosha County averages 4.95 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.97 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.213, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 17,742 to 26,828 kWh a year, 51% 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 | 5.73 m/s | 17,742 kWh | 30 years |
| 30 m | 6.25 m/s | 21,569 kWh | 24 years |
| 40 m | 6.65 m/s | 24,483 kWh | 21 years |
| 50 m | 6.97 m/s | 26,828 kWh | 20 years |
Counties around Kenosha County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Racine County, averages 7.19 m/s.
- Racine County, WI: 7.19 m/s, 28,390 kWh, payback 19 years (14 mi)
- Milwaukee County, WI: 6.28 m/s, 21,781 kWh, payback 24 years (22 mi)
- Lake County, IL: 6.73 m/s, 25,093 kWh, payback 21 years (28 mi)
- Walworth County, WI: 6.05 m/s, 20,075 kWh, payback 26 years (34 mi)
- McHenry County, IL: 6.05 m/s, 20,075 kWh, payback 26 years (34 mi)
- Waukesha County, WI: 6.28 m/s, 21,781 kWh, payback 24 years (37 mi)
Sun versus wind in Kenosha County
Kenosha County gets 3.67 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,072 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,156. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 2.0 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.