Wind Turbine Payback in Mackinac County, MI
Wind turbine payback in Mackinac 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 Mackinac County, MI averages 5.26 m/s (11.8 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 14,327 kWh a year, worth $3,113 at MI's 21.73¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 32 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Mackinac County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Mackinac County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 6.4 m/s at the hub against 5.26 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,007 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,433, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 35¢/kWh, 1.6 times what MI pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 6.4 m/s instead of 5.26. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MI
Mackinac County is the 1,339th 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 Mackinac County
January is the strongest month here, at 6.30 m/s and about 1,862 kWh. June is the weakest, 3.98 m/s and 532 kWh, so the best month makes 3.5 times the worst. November to March brings in 58% of the year's output in Mackinac County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.30 m/s | 1,862 kWh | $405 |
| February | 6.34 m/s | 1,707 kWh | $371 |
| March | 5.63 m/s | 1,443 kWh | $314 |
| April | 5.41 m/s | 1,268 kWh | $276 |
| May | 4.55 m/s | 818 kWh | $178 |
| June | 3.98 m/s | 532 kWh | $116 |
| July | 4.03 m/s | 573 kWh | $125 |
| August | 4.31 m/s | 701 kWh | $152 |
| September | 4.85 m/s | 946 kWh | $206 |
| October | 5.54 m/s | 1,387 kWh | $301 |
| November | 6.02 m/s | 1,631 kWh | $354 |
| December | 6.20 m/s | 1,799 kWh | $391 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Mackinac County averages 4.22 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.83 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.201, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 11,533 to 18,447 kWh a year, 60% 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 | 4.85 m/s | 11,533 kWh | 40 years |
| 30 m | 5.26 m/s | 14,334 kWh | 32 years |
| 40 m | 5.57 m/s | 16,575 kWh | 28 years |
| 50 m | 5.83 m/s | 18,447 kWh | 25 years |
Counties around Mackinac County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Charlevoix County, averages 7.15 m/s.
- Luce County, MI: 4.89 m/s, 11,800 kWh, payback 39 years (26 mi)
- Chippewa County, MI: 4.74 m/s, 10,826 kWh, payback 43 years (39 mi)
- Charlevoix County, MI: 7.15 m/s, 28,109 kWh, payback 16 years (40 mi)
- Emmet County, MI: 6.4 m/s, 22,669 kWh, payback 20 years (43 mi)
- Schoolcraft County, MI: 5.88 m/s, 18,816 kWh, payback 25 years (44 mi)
- Cheboygan County, MI: 5.44 m/s, 15,605 kWh, payback 30 years (62 mi)
Sun versus wind in Mackinac County
Mackinac County gets 3.45 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,007 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,433. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.4 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.