Wind Turbine Payback in Mower County, MN
Wind turbine payback in Mower 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 Mower County, MN averages 6.37 m/s (14.2 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 22,447 kWh a year, worth $3,690 at MN's 16.44¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 27 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Mower County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Mower County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.5 m/s at the hub against 6.37 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,142 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,245, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 22¢/kWh, 1.4 times what MN pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.5 m/s instead of 6.37. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MN
Mower County is the 380th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in MN is Lincoln County at 6.68 m/s, payback 25 years.
Month by month in Mower County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.18 m/s and about 2,329 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.04 m/s and 1,089 kWh, so the best month makes 2.1 times the worst. November to March brings in 48% of the year's output in Mower County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.92 m/s | 2,250 kWh | $370 |
| February | 6.92 m/s | 2,032 kWh | $334 |
| March | 6.89 m/s | 2,228 kWh | $366 |
| April | 7.18 m/s | 2,329 kWh | $383 |
| May | 6.50 m/s | 1,989 kWh | $327 |
| June | 5.82 m/s | 1,511 kWh | $248 |
| July | 5.10 m/s | 1,120 kWh | $184 |
| August | 5.04 m/s | 1,089 kWh | $179 |
| September | 6.09 m/s | 1,674 kWh | $275 |
| October | 6.61 m/s | 2,056 kWh | $338 |
| November | 6.75 m/s | 2,076 kWh | $341 |
| December | 6.62 m/s | 2,062 kWh | $339 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Mower County averages 5.02 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.11 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.216, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 18,472 to 27,826 kWh a year, 51% 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 | 5.83 m/s | 18,472 kWh | 33 years |
| 30 m | 6.37 m/s | 22,427 kWh | 27 years |
| 40 m | 6.78 m/s | 25,424 kWh | 24 years |
| 50 m | 7.11 m/s | 27,826 kWh | 22 years |
Counties around Mower County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Dodge County, averages 6.45 m/s.
- Mitchell County, IA: 6.37 m/s, 22,447 kWh, payback 31 years (22 mi)
- Dodge County, MN: 6.45 m/s, 23,038 kWh, payback 26 years (25 mi)
- Olmsted County, MN: 6.37 m/s, 22,447 kWh, payback 27 years (29 mi)
- Freeborn County, MN: 6.43 m/s, 22,891 kWh, payback 27 years (30 mi)
- Howard County, IA: 6.37 m/s, 22,447 kWh, payback 31 years (30 mi)
- Worth County, IA: 6.43 m/s, 22,891 kWh, payback 30 years (32 mi)
Sun versus wind in Mower County
Mower County gets 3.91 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,142 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,245. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 2.0 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.