Wind Turbine Payback in Kent County, MI
Wind turbine payback in Kent 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 Kent County, MI averages 6 m/s (13.4 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 19,704 kWh a year, worth $4,282 at MI's 21.73¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 23 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Kent County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Kent County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 6.4 m/s at the hub against 6 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,086 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,970, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 25¢/kWh, 1.2 times what MI pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 6.4 m/s instead of 6. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MI
Kent County is the 840th 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 Kent County
January is the strongest month here, at 6.78 m/s and about 2,163 kWh. July is the weakest, 4.70 m/s and 898 kWh, so the best month makes 2.4 times the worst. November to March brings in 51% of the year's output in Kent County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.78 m/s | 2,163 kWh | $470 |
| February | 6.80 m/s | 1,964 kWh | $427 |
| March | 6.44 m/s | 1,953 kWh | $424 |
| April | 6.68 m/s | 2,030 kWh | $441 |
| May | 5.85 m/s | 1,578 kWh | $343 |
| June | 5.14 m/s | 1,111 kWh | $241 |
| July | 4.70 m/s | 898 kWh | $195 |
| August | 4.74 m/s | 922 kWh | $200 |
| September | 5.38 m/s | 1,250 kWh | $272 |
| October | 6.33 m/s | 1,880 kWh | $409 |
| November | 6.64 m/s | 2,008 kWh | $436 |
| December | 6.62 m/s | 2,064 kWh | $449 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Kent County averages 4.67 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.74 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.228, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 15,816 to 25,166 kWh a year, 59% 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 | 5.47 m/s | 15,816 kWh | 29 years |
| 30 m | 6 m/s | 19,697 kWh | 23 years |
| 40 m | 6.41 m/s | 22,711 kWh | 20 years |
| 50 m | 6.74 m/s | 25,166 kWh | 18 years |
Counties around Kent County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Ottawa County, averages 6.69 m/s.
- Ionia County, MI: 6 m/s, 19,704 kWh, payback 23 years (25 mi)
- Montcalm County, MI: 6.01 m/s, 19,778 kWh, payback 23 years (28 mi)
- Barry County, MI: 6.07 m/s, 20,223 kWh, payback 23 years (33 mi)
- Ottawa County, MI: 6.69 m/s, 24,801 kWh, payback 19 years (34 mi)
- Newaygo County, MI: 5.89 m/s, 18,890 kWh, payback 24 years (39 mi)
- Mecosta County, MI: 5.89 m/s, 18,890 kWh, payback 24 years (43 mi)
Sun versus wind in Kent County
Kent County gets 3.72 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,086 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,970. 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.