Wind Turbine Payback in Monroe County, MI
Wind turbine payback in Monroe 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 Monroe County, MI averages 6.03 m/s (13.5 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 19,926 kWh a year, worth $4,330 at MI's 21.73¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 23 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Monroe County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Monroe County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 6.4 m/s at the hub against 6.03 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,121 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,993, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 25¢/kWh, 1.2 times what MI pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 6.4 m/s instead of 6.03. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MI
Monroe County is the 791st 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 Monroe County
January is the strongest month here, at 6.91 m/s and about 2,242 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.68 m/s and 888 kWh, so the best month makes 2.5 times the worst. November to March brings in 51% of the year's output in Monroe County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.91 m/s | 2,242 kWh | $487 |
| February | 6.79 m/s | 1,960 kWh | $426 |
| March | 6.58 m/s | 2,037 kWh | $443 |
| April | 6.79 m/s | 2,100 kWh | $456 |
| May | 5.85 m/s | 1,582 kWh | $344 |
| June | 5.25 m/s | 1,174 kWh | $255 |
| July | 4.77 m/s | 936 kWh | $203 |
| August | 4.68 m/s | 888 kWh | $193 |
| September | 5.25 m/s | 1,174 kWh | $255 |
| October | 6.35 m/s | 1,891 kWh | $411 |
| November | 6.63 m/s | 2,004 kWh | $435 |
| December | 6.62 m/s | 2,065 kWh | $449 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Monroe County averages 4.75 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.74 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.217, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 16,215 to 25,166 kWh a year, 55% 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 | 5.52 m/s | 16,215 kWh | 28 years |
| 30 m | 6.03 m/s | 19,947 kWh | 23 years |
| 40 m | 6.42 m/s | 22,827 kWh | 20 years |
| 50 m | 6.74 m/s | 25,166 kWh | 18 years |
Counties around Monroe County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Ottawa County, averages 6.2 m/s.
- Lucas County, OH: 5.93 m/s, 19,186 kWh, payback 28 years (16 mi)
- Wayne County, MI: 6.17 m/s, 20,965 kWh, payback 22 years (28 mi)
- Washtenaw County, MI: 6.09 m/s, 20,371 kWh, payback 23 years (30 mi)
- Lenawee County, MI: 6.12 m/s, 20,594 kWh, payback 22 years (30 mi)
- Ottawa County, OH: 6.2 m/s, 21,187 kWh, payback 25 years (35 mi)
- Wood County, OH: 5.93 m/s, 19,186 kWh, payback 28 years (39 mi)
Sun versus wind in Monroe County
Monroe County gets 3.84 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,121 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,993. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.8 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.