Wind Turbine Payback in Newaygo County, MI
Wind turbine payback in Newaygo 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 Newaygo County, MI averages 5.89 m/s (13.2 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 18,890 kWh a year, worth $4,105 at MI's 21.73¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 24 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Newaygo County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Newaygo County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 6.4 m/s at the hub against 5.89 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,086 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,889, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 26¢/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 5.89. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MI
Newaygo County is the 1,001st 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 Newaygo County
January is the strongest month here, at 6.57 m/s and about 2,032 kWh. July is the weakest, 4.68 m/s and 885 kWh, so the best month makes 2.3 times the worst. November to March brings in 51% of the year's output in Newaygo County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.57 m/s | 2,032 kWh | $442 |
| February | 6.68 m/s | 1,896 kWh | $412 |
| March | 6.32 m/s | 1,876 kWh | $408 |
| April | 6.54 m/s | 1,951 kWh | $424 |
| May | 5.76 m/s | 1,524 kWh | $331 |
| June | 5.09 m/s | 1,078 kWh | $234 |
| July | 4.68 m/s | 885 kWh | $192 |
| August | 4.79 m/s | 948 kWh | $206 |
| September | 5.32 m/s | 1,211 kWh | $263 |
| October | 6.15 m/s | 1,770 kWh | $385 |
| November | 6.39 m/s | 1,859 kWh | $404 |
| December | 6.41 m/s | 1,932 kWh | $420 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Newaygo County averages 4.57 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.62 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 15,048 to 24,289 kWh a year, 61% 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 | 5.36 m/s | 15,048 kWh | 31 years |
| 30 m | 5.89 m/s | 18,862 kWh | 24 years |
| 40 m | 6.29 m/s | 21,846 kWh | 21 years |
| 50 m | 6.62 m/s | 24,289 kWh | 19 years |
Counties around Newaygo County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Muskegon County, averages 6.5 m/s.
- Mecosta County, MI: 5.89 m/s, 18,890 kWh, payback 24 years (23 mi)
- Lake County, MI: 5.54 m/s, 16,326 kWh, payback 28 years (30 mi)
- Muskegon County, MI: 6.5 m/s, 23,407 kWh, payback 20 years (33 mi)
- Oceana County, MI: 6.5 m/s, 23,407 kWh, payback 20 years (34 mi)
- Montcalm County, MI: 6.01 m/s, 19,778 kWh, payback 23 years (37 mi)
- Osceola County, MI: 5.54 m/s, 16,326 kWh, payback 28 years (38 mi)
Sun versus wind in Newaygo County
Newaygo County gets 3.72 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,086 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,889. 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.