Wind Turbine Payback in Otsego County, MI
Wind turbine payback in Otsego 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 Otsego County, MI averages 4.66 m/s (10.4 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 10,320 kWh a year, worth $2,242 at MI's 21.73¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 45 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Otsego County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Otsego County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 6.4 m/s at the hub against 4.66 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,037 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,032, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 48¢/kWh, 2.2 times what MI pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 6.4 m/s instead of 4.66. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MI
Otsego County is the 1,645th 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 Otsego County
February is the strongest month here, at 5.62 m/s and about 1,298 kWh. July is the weakest, 3.80 m/s and 477 kWh, so the best month makes 2.7 times the worst. November to March brings in 55% of the year's output in Otsego County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.37 m/s | 1,285 kWh | $279 |
| February | 5.62 m/s | 1,298 kWh | $282 |
| March | 5.13 m/s | 1,142 kWh | $248 |
| April | 5.07 m/s | 1,067 kWh | $232 |
| May | 4.32 m/s | 705 kWh | $153 |
| June | 3.87 m/s | 488 kWh | $106 |
| July | 3.80 m/s | 477 kWh | $104 |
| August | 3.92 m/s | 525 kWh | $114 |
| September | 4.16 m/s | 608 kWh | $132 |
| October | 4.66 m/s | 874 kWh | $190 |
| November | 4.91 m/s | 982 kWh | $213 |
| December | 5.13 m/s | 1,137 kWh | $247 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Otsego County averages 3.33 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.44 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.305, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 7,162 to 15,605 kWh a year, 118% 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 | 4.11 m/s | 7,162 kWh | 64 years |
| 30 m | 4.66 m/s | 10,289 kWh | 45 years |
| 40 m | 5.08 m/s | 13,092 kWh | 35 years |
| 50 m | 5.44 m/s | 15,605 kWh | 30 years |
Counties around Otsego County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Antrim County, averages 6.06 m/s.
- Montmorency County, MI: 4.66 m/s, 10,320 kWh, payback 45 years (22 mi)
- Crawford County, MI: 4.1 m/s, 7,090 kWh, payback 65 years (24 mi)
- Antrim County, MI: 6.06 m/s, 20,149 kWh, payback 23 years (29 mi)
- Cheboygan County, MI: 5.44 m/s, 15,605 kWh, payback 30 years (32 mi)
- Oscoda County, MI: 4.1 m/s, 7,090 kWh, payback 65 years (32 mi)
- Kalkaska County, MI: 5.29 m/s, 14,538 kWh, payback 32 years (35 mi)
Sun versus wind in Otsego County
Otsego County gets 3.55 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,037 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,032. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.0 times as much here as the turbine. 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.