Wind Turbine Payback in Lake County, MI
Wind turbine payback in Lake 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 Lake County, MI averages 5.54 m/s (12.4 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 16,326 kWh a year, worth $3,548 at MI's 21.73¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 28 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Lake County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Lake County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 6.4 m/s at the hub against 5.54 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,086 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,633, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 31¢/kWh, 1.4 times what MI pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 6.4 m/s instead of 5.54. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MI
Lake County is the 1,186th 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 Lake County
January is the strongest month here, at 6.29 m/s and about 1,855 kWh. July is the weakest, 4.37 m/s and 730 kWh, so the best month makes 2.5 times the worst. November to March brings in 52% of the year's output in Lake County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.29 m/s | 1,855 kWh | $403 |
| February | 6.43 m/s | 1,756 kWh | $382 |
| March | 6.01 m/s | 1,678 kWh | $365 |
| April | 6.13 m/s | 1,699 kWh | $369 |
| May | 5.38 m/s | 1,291 kWh | $281 |
| June | 4.72 m/s | 878 kWh | $191 |
| July | 4.37 m/s | 730 kWh | $159 |
| August | 4.51 m/s | 796 kWh | $173 |
| September | 4.98 m/s | 1,019 kWh | $221 |
| October | 5.72 m/s | 1,497 kWh | $325 |
| November | 5.96 m/s | 1,597 kWh | $347 |
| December | 6.09 m/s | 1,728 kWh | $375 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Lake County averages 4.19 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.31 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.254, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 12,533 to 22,003 kWh a year, 76% 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 m/s | 12,533 kWh | 37 years |
| 30 m | 5.54 m/s | 16,342 kWh | 28 years |
| 40 m | 5.96 m/s | 19,425 kWh | 24 years |
| 50 m | 6.31 m/s | 22,003 kWh | 21 years |
Counties around Lake County
5 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Wexford County, averages 6.23 m/s.
- Osceola County, MI: 5.54 m/s, 16,326 kWh, payback 28 years (24 mi)
- Wexford County, MI: 6.23 m/s, 21,410 kWh, payback 22 years (26 mi)
- Newaygo County, MI: 5.89 m/s, 18,890 kWh, payback 24 years (30 mi)
- Manistee County, MI: 5.77 m/s, 18,006 kWh, payback 26 years (31 mi)
- Mason County, MI: 5.77 m/s, 18,006 kWh, payback 26 years (32 mi)
- Mecosta County, MI: 5.89 m/s, 18,890 kWh, payback 24 years (34 mi)
Sun versus wind in Lake County
Lake 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 1,633. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.5 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.