Wind Turbine Payback in Nobles County, MN
Wind turbine payback in Nobles 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 Nobles County, MN averages 6.57 m/s (14.7 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 23,922 kWh a year, worth $3,933 at MN's 16.44¢/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 Nobles County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Nobles County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.5 m/s at the hub against 6.57 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,188 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,392, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 21¢/kWh, 1.3 times what MN pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.5 m/s instead of 6.57. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MN
Nobles County is the 130th 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 Nobles County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.44 m/s and about 2,478 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.40 m/s and 1,304 kWh, so the best month makes 1.9 times the worst. November to March brings in 45% of the year's output in Nobles County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.77 m/s | 2,156 kWh | $354 |
| February | 6.81 m/s | 1,972 kWh | $324 |
| March | 7.04 m/s | 2,320 kWh | $381 |
| April | 7.44 m/s | 2,478 kWh | $407 |
| May | 6.85 m/s | 2,205 kWh | $363 |
| June | 6.14 m/s | 1,706 kWh | $280 |
| July | 5.42 m/s | 1,315 kWh | $216 |
| August | 5.40 m/s | 1,304 kWh | $214 |
| September | 6.50 m/s | 1,924 kWh | $316 |
| October | 6.92 m/s | 2,249 kWh | $370 |
| November | 6.93 m/s | 2,182 kWh | $359 |
| December | 6.68 m/s | 2,100 kWh | $345 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Nobles County averages 5.21 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.32 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.211, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 19,950 to 29,299 kWh a year, 47% 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 | 6.03 m/s | 19,950 kWh | 31 years |
| 30 m | 6.57 m/s | 23,937 kWh | 25 years |
| 40 m | 6.98 m/s | 26,924 kWh | 23 years |
| 50 m | 7.32 m/s | 29,299 kWh | 21 years |
Counties around Nobles County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Murray County, averages 6.68 m/s.
- Osceola County, IA: 6.57 m/s, 23,922 kWh, payback 29 years (22 mi)
- Murray County, MN: 6.68 m/s, 24,728 kWh, payback 25 years (23 mi)
- Rock County, MN: 6.46 m/s, 23,112 kWh, payback 26 years (25 mi)
- Lyon County, IA: 6.46 m/s, 23,112 kWh, payback 30 years (30 mi)
- Jackson County, MN: 6.59 m/s, 24,069 kWh, payback 25 years (31 mi)
- Pipestone County, MN: 6.65 m/s, 24,509 kWh, payback 25 years (34 mi)
Sun versus wind in Nobles County
Nobles County gets 4.07 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,188 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,392. 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.