Wind Turbine Payback in Lyon County, MN
Wind turbine payback in Lyon 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 Lyon County, MN averages 6.5 m/s (14.5 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 23,407 kWh a year, worth $3,848 at MN's 16.44¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 26 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Lyon County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Lyon County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.5 m/s at the hub against 6.5 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,165 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,341, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 21¢/kWh, 1.3 times what MN pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.5 m/s instead of 6.5. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MN
Lyon County is the 208th 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 Lyon County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.16 m/s and about 2,316 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.36 m/s and 1,278 kWh, so the best month makes 1.8 times the worst. November to March brings in 45% of the year's output in Lyon County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.80 m/s | 2,174 kWh | $357 |
| February | 6.79 m/s | 1,959 kWh | $322 |
| March | 6.84 m/s | 2,197 kWh | $361 |
| April | 7.16 m/s | 2,316 kWh | $381 |
| May | 6.73 m/s | 2,130 kWh | $350 |
| June | 6.04 m/s | 1,642 kWh | $270 |
| July | 5.39 m/s | 1,295 kWh | $213 |
| August | 5.36 m/s | 1,278 kWh | $210 |
| September | 6.49 m/s | 1,915 kWh | $315 |
| October | 6.90 m/s | 2,235 kWh | $367 |
| November | 6.90 m/s | 2,163 kWh | $356 |
| December | 6.64 m/s | 2,074 kWh | $341 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Lyon County averages 5.16 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.23 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.210, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 19,441 to 28,671 kWh a year, 47% 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 | 5.96 m/s | 19,441 kWh | 31 years |
| 30 m | 6.49 m/s | 23,367 kWh | 26 years |
| 40 m | 6.9 m/s | 26,318 kWh | 23 years |
| 50 m | 7.23 m/s | 28,671 kWh | 21 years |
Counties around Lyon County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Lincoln County, averages 6.68 m/s.
- Lincoln County, MN: 6.68 m/s, 24,728 kWh, payback 25 years (21 mi)
- Yellow Medicine County, MN: 6.5 m/s, 23,407 kWh, payback 26 years (21 mi)
- Murray County, MN: 6.68 m/s, 24,728 kWh, payback 25 years (28 mi)
- Redwood County, MN: 6.34 m/s, 22,225 kWh, payback 27 years (29 mi)
- Pipestone County, MN: 6.65 m/s, 24,509 kWh, payback 25 years (34 mi)
- Cottonwood County, MN: 6.53 m/s, 23,628 kWh, payback 26 years (43 mi)
Sun versus wind in Lyon County
Lyon County gets 3.99 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,165 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,341. 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.