Wind Turbine Payback in Lake County, MN
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, MN averages 4.46 m/s (10 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 9,100 kWh a year, worth $1,496 at MN's 16.44¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 67 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, 7.5 m/s at the hub against 4.46 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,022 kWh a year here against the turbine's 910, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 55¢/kWh, 3.3 times what MN pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.5 m/s instead of 4.46. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MN
Lake County is the 1,772nd 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 Lake County
January is the strongest month here, at 5.18 m/s and about 1,168 kWh. June is the weakest, 3.70 m/s and 424 kWh, so the best month makes 2.8 times the worst. November to March brings in 54% of the year's output in Lake County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.18 m/s | 1,168 kWh | $192 |
| February | 5.21 m/s | 1,073 kWh | $176 |
| March | 4.76 m/s | 930 kWh | $153 |
| April | 4.71 m/s | 873 kWh | $144 |
| May | 4.04 m/s | 576 kWh | $95 |
| June | 3.70 m/s | 424 kWh | $70 |
| July | 3.70 m/s | 438 kWh | $72 |
| August | 3.85 m/s | 498 kWh | $82 |
| September | 4.21 m/s | 632 kWh | $104 |
| October | 4.55 m/s | 816 kWh | $134 |
| November | 4.73 m/s | 886 kWh | $146 |
| December | 4.90 m/s | 1,005 kWh | $165 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Lake County averages 3.18 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.22 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.308, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 6,262 to 14,046 kWh a year, 124% 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 | 3.94 m/s | 6,262 kWh | 97 years |
| 30 m | 4.46 m/s | 9,101 kWh | 67 years |
| 40 m | 4.87 m/s | 11,690 kWh | 52 years |
| 50 m | 5.22 m/s | 14,046 kWh | 43 years |
Counties around Lake County
5 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Carlton County, averages 5.93 m/s.
- St. Louis County, MN: 5.59 m/s, 16,689 kWh, payback 36 years (52 mi)
- Cook County, MN: 4.7 m/s, 10,571 kWh, payback 58 years (52 mi)
- Bayfield County, WI: 4.9 m/s, 11,866 kWh, payback 44 years (62 mi)
- Ashland County, WI: 4.4 m/s, 8,748 kWh, payback 60 years (76 mi)
- Douglas County, WI: 5.45 m/s, 15,677 kWh, payback 34 years (76 mi)
- Carlton County, MN: 5.93 m/s, 19,186 kWh, payback 32 years (87 mi)
Sun versus wind in Lake County
Lake County gets 3.5 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,022 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 910. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.1 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.