Wind Turbine Payback in Koochiching County, MN
Wind turbine payback in Koochiching 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 Koochiching County, MN averages 4.1 m/s (9.2 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 7,090 kWh a year, worth $1,166 at MN's 16.44¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 86 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Koochiching County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Koochiching County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.5 m/s at the hub against 4.1 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,028 kWh a year here against the turbine's 709, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 71¢/kWh, 4.3 times what MN pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.5 m/s instead of 4.1. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MN
Koochiching County is the 1,994th 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 Koochiching County
April is the strongest month here, at 4.42 m/s and about 731 kWh. July is the weakest, 3.73 m/s and 449 kWh, so the best month makes 1.6 times the worst. November to March brings in 45% of the year's output in Koochiching County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.21 m/s | 653 kWh | $107 |
| February | 4.32 m/s | 635 kWh | $104 |
| March | 4.35 m/s | 719 kWh | $118 |
| April | 4.42 m/s | 731 kWh | $120 |
| May | 4.11 m/s | 604 kWh | $99 |
| June | 3.89 m/s | 497 kWh | $82 |
| July | 3.73 m/s | 449 kWh | $74 |
| August | 3.77 m/s | 465 kWh | $76 |
| September | 4.08 m/s | 574 kWh | $94 |
| October | 4.13 m/s | 615 kWh | $101 |
| November | 4.15 m/s | 603 kWh | $99 |
| December | 3.99 m/s | 555 kWh | $91 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Koochiching County averages 2.67 m/s; at 50 m it is 5 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.390, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 4,319 to 12,535 kWh a year, 190% 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 | 3.5 m/s | 4,319 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 4.1 m/s | 7,074 kWh | 86 years |
| 40 m | 4.58 m/s | 9,844 kWh | 62 years |
| 50 m | 5 m/s | 12,535 kWh | 49 years |
Counties around Koochiching County
6 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Clearwater County, averages 6.56 m/s.
- Itasca County, MN: 5.88 m/s, 18,816 kWh, payback 32 years (53 mi)
- Beltrami County, MN: 6.25 m/s, 21,558 kWh, payback 28 years (62 mi)
- Lake of the Woods County, MN: 5.51 m/s, 16,109 kWh, payback 38 years (63 mi)
- St. Louis County, MN: 5.59 m/s, 16,689 kWh, payback 36 years (75 mi)
- Clearwater County, MN: 6.56 m/s, 23,849 kWh, payback 26 years (87 mi)
- Cass County, MN: 6.38 m/s, 22,521 kWh, payback 27 years (93 mi)
Sun versus wind in Koochiching County
Koochiching County gets 3.52 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,028 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 709. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.4 times as much here as the turbine. 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.