Wind Turbine Payback in Macomb County, MI
Wind turbine payback in Macomb 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 Macomb County, MI averages 6.17 m/s (13.8 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 20,965 kWh a year, worth $4,556 at MI's 21.73¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 22 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Macomb County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Macomb County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 6.4 m/s at the hub against 6.17 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,104 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,097, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 24¢/kWh, 1.1 times what MI pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 6.4 m/s instead of 6.17. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MI
Macomb County is the 608th 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 Macomb County
January is the strongest month here, at 7.11 m/s and about 2,365 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.78 m/s and 942 kWh, so the best month makes 2.5 times the worst. November to March brings in 52% of the year's output in Macomb County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 7.11 m/s | 2,365 kWh | $514 |
| February | 7.00 m/s | 2,072 kWh | $450 |
| March | 6.70 m/s | 2,113 kWh | $459 |
| April | 6.89 m/s | 2,157 kWh | $469 |
| May | 5.87 m/s | 1,595 kWh | $347 |
| June | 5.30 m/s | 1,201 kWh | $261 |
| July | 4.79 m/s | 946 kWh | $206 |
| August | 4.78 m/s | 942 kWh | $205 |
| September | 5.42 m/s | 1,269 kWh | $276 |
| October | 6.55 m/s | 2,018 kWh | $439 |
| November | 6.85 m/s | 2,135 kWh | $464 |
| December | 6.86 m/s | 2,212 kWh | $481 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Macomb County averages 4.88 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.88 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.213, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 17,200 to 26,181 kWh a year, 52% 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 | 5.66 m/s | 17,200 kWh | 27 years |
| 30 m | 6.17 m/s | 20,970 kWh | 22 years |
| 40 m | 6.56 m/s | 23,853 kWh | 19 years |
| 50 m | 6.88 m/s | 26,181 kWh | 18 years |
Counties around Macomb County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, St. Clair County, averages 6.42 m/s.
- St. Clair County, MI: 6.42 m/s, 22,817 kWh, payback 20 years (22 mi)
- Oakland County, MI: 6.17 m/s, 20,965 kWh, payback 22 years (24 mi)
- Wayne County, MI: 6.17 m/s, 20,965 kWh, payback 22 years (32 mi)
- Lapeer County, MI: 6.23 m/s, 21,410 kWh, payback 22 years (33 mi)
- Genesee County, MI: 6.13 m/s, 20,668 kWh, payback 22 years (47 mi)
- Livingston County, MI: 6.09 m/s, 20,371 kWh, payback 23 years (51 mi)
Sun versus wind in Macomb County
Macomb County gets 3.78 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,104 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,097. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.9 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.