Wind Turbine Payback in Marquette County, MI
Wind turbine payback in Marquette 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 Marquette County, MI averages 4.81 m/s (10.8 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 11,276 kWh a year, worth $2,450 at MI's 21.73¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 41 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Marquette County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Marquette County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 6.4 m/s at the hub against 4.81 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,004 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,128, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 44¢/kWh, 2.0 times what MI pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 6.4 m/s instead of 4.81. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MI
Marquette County is the 1,557th 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 Marquette County
January is the strongest month here, at 5.79 m/s and about 1,540 kWh. June is the weakest, 3.73 m/s and 434 kWh, so the best month makes 3.5 times the worst. November to March brings in 58% of the year's output in Marquette County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.79 m/s | 1,540 kWh | $335 |
| February | 5.87 m/s | 1,436 kWh | $312 |
| March | 5.32 m/s | 1,256 kWh | $273 |
| April | 4.98 m/s | 1,017 kWh | $221 |
| May | 4.29 m/s | 688 kWh | $150 |
| June | 3.73 m/s | 434 kWh | $94 |
| July | 3.76 m/s | 462 kWh | $100 |
| August | 3.93 m/s | 528 kWh | $115 |
| September | 4.49 m/s | 761 kWh | $165 |
| October | 4.93 m/s | 1,026 kWh | $223 |
| November | 5.28 m/s | 1,190 kWh | $259 |
| December | 5.46 m/s | 1,335 kWh | $290 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Marquette County averages 3.59 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.51 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.266, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 8,279 to 16,109 kWh a year, 95% 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 | 4.32 m/s | 8,279 kWh | 56 years |
| 30 m | 4.81 m/s | 11,276 kWh | 41 years |
| 40 m | 5.19 m/s | 13,854 kWh | 33 years |
| 50 m | 5.51 m/s | 16,109 kWh | 29 years |
Counties around Marquette County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Keweenaw County, averages 7.4 m/s.
- Baraga County, MI: 4.27 m/s, 8,008 kWh, payback 58 years (37 mi)
- Alger County, MI: 5.37 m/s, 15,105 kWh, payback 31 years (45 mi)
- Dickinson County, MI: 3.95 m/s, 6,329 kWh, payback 73 years (46 mi)
- Houghton County, MI: 5.41 m/s, 15,390 kWh, payback 30 years (56 mi)
- Iron County, MI: 4.06 m/s, 6,883 kWh, payback 67 years (57 mi)
- Keweenaw County, MI: 7.4 m/s, 29,851 kWh, payback 15 years (61 mi)
Sun versus wind in Marquette County
Marquette County gets 3.44 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,004 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,128. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.1 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.