Wind Turbine Payback in Midland County, MI
Wind turbine payback in Midland 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 Midland County, MI averages 5.82 m/s (13 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 18,374 kWh a year, worth $3,993 at MI's 21.73¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 25 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Midland County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Midland County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 6.4 m/s at the hub against 5.82 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,095 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,837, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 27¢/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 5.82. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MI
Midland County is the 1,048th 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 Midland County
January is the strongest month here, at 6.49 m/s and about 1,982 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.70 m/s and 900 kWh, so the best month makes 2.2 times the worst. November to March brings in 50% of the year's output in Midland County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.49 m/s | 1,982 kWh | $431 |
| February | 6.54 m/s | 1,821 kWh | $396 |
| March | 6.23 m/s | 1,820 kWh | $395 |
| April | 6.46 m/s | 1,897 kWh | $412 |
| May | 5.70 m/s | 1,485 kWh | $323 |
| June | 5.09 m/s | 1,078 kWh | $234 |
| July | 4.70 m/s | 900 kWh | $196 |
| August | 4.70 m/s | 900 kWh | $196 |
| September | 5.17 m/s | 1,124 kWh | $244 |
| October | 6.12 m/s | 1,747 kWh | $380 |
| November | 6.32 m/s | 1,816 kWh | $395 |
| December | 6.30 m/s | 1,859 kWh | $404 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Midland County averages 4.52 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.54 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.230, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 14,589 to 23,702 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 | 5.3 m/s | 14,589 kWh | 32 years |
| 30 m | 5.82 m/s | 18,337 kWh | 25 years |
| 40 m | 6.21 m/s | 21,282 kWh | 22 years |
| 50 m | 6.54 m/s | 23,702 kWh | 19 years |
Counties around Midland County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Bay County, averages 6.17 m/s.
- Bay County, MI: 6.17 m/s, 20,965 kWh, payback 22 years (20 mi)
- Isabella County, MI: 6.01 m/s, 19,778 kWh, payback 23 years (23 mi)
- Gladwin County, MI: 4.8 m/s, 11,212 kWh, payback 41 years (24 mi)
- Gratiot County, MI: 5.82 m/s, 18,374 kWh, payback 25 years (27 mi)
- Saginaw County, MI: 6.17 m/s, 20,965 kWh, payback 22 years (27 mi)
- Clare County, MI: 5.26 m/s, 14,327 kWh, payback 32 years (33 mi)
Sun versus wind in Midland County
Midland County gets 3.75 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,095 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,837. 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.