Wind Turbine Payback in Mason County, MI
Wind turbine payback in Mason 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 Mason County, MI averages 5.77 m/s (12.9 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 18,006 kWh a year, worth $3,913 at MI's 21.73¢/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 Mason County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Mason County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 6.4 m/s at the hub against 5.77 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,077 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,801, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 28¢/kWh, 1.3 times what MI pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 6.4 m/s instead of 5.77. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MI
Mason County is the 1,088th 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 Mason County
January is the strongest month here, at 6.76 m/s and about 2,152 kWh. July is the weakest, 4.49 m/s and 791 kWh, so the best month makes 2.7 times the worst. November to March brings in 54% of the year's output in Mason County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.76 m/s | 2,152 kWh | $468 |
| February | 6.75 m/s | 1,934 kWh | $420 |
| March | 6.17 m/s | 1,779 kWh | $387 |
| April | 6.14 m/s | 1,706 kWh | $371 |
| May | 5.41 m/s | 1,308 kWh | $284 |
| June | 4.79 m/s | 915 kWh | $199 |
| July | 4.49 m/s | 791 kWh | $172 |
| August | 4.56 m/s | 822 kWh | $179 |
| September | 5.19 m/s | 1,137 kWh | $247 |
| October | 6.02 m/s | 1,684 kWh | $366 |
| November | 6.42 m/s | 1,874 kWh | $407 |
| December | 6.57 m/s | 2,031 kWh | $441 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Mason County averages 4.49 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.48 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.228, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 14,315 to 23,260 kWh a year, 62% 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 | 5.26 m/s | 14,315 kWh | 32 years |
| 30 m | 5.77 m/s | 17,988 kWh | 26 years |
| 40 m | 6.16 m/s | 20,880 kWh | 22 years |
| 50 m | 6.48 m/s | 23,260 kWh | 20 years |
Counties around Mason County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Benzie County, averages 6.94 m/s.
- Manistee County, MI: 5.77 m/s, 18,006 kWh, payback 26 years (21 mi)
- Oceana County, MI: 6.5 m/s, 23,407 kWh, payback 20 years (24 mi)
- Lake County, MI: 5.54 m/s, 16,326 kWh, payback 28 years (32 mi)
- Muskegon County, MI: 6.5 m/s, 23,407 kWh, payback 20 years (37 mi)
- Newaygo County, MI: 5.89 m/s, 18,890 kWh, payback 24 years (42 mi)
- Benzie County, MI: 6.94 m/s, 26,613 kWh, payback 17 years (48 mi)
Sun versus wind in Mason County
Mason County gets 3.69 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,077 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,801. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.7 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.