Wind Turbine Payback in Pope County, MN
Wind turbine payback in Pope 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 Pope County, MN averages 6.39 m/s (14.3 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 22,595 kWh a year, worth $3,715 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 Pope County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Pope County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.5 m/s at the hub against 6.39 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,133 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,260, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 22¢/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 6.39. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MN
Pope County is the 347th 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 Pope County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.08 m/s and about 2,271 kWh. July is the weakest, 5.44 m/s and 1,324 kWh, so the best month makes 1.7 times the worst. November to March brings in 43% of the year's output in Pope County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.48 m/s | 1,975 kWh | $325 |
| February | 6.57 m/s | 1,835 kWh | $302 |
| March | 6.69 m/s | 2,104 kWh | $346 |
| April | 7.08 m/s | 2,271 kWh | $373 |
| May | 6.73 m/s | 2,132 kWh | $351 |
| June | 6.08 m/s | 1,671 kWh | $275 |
| July | 5.44 m/s | 1,324 kWh | $218 |
| August | 5.46 m/s | 1,340 kWh | $220 |
| September | 6.46 m/s | 1,901 kWh | $313 |
| October | 6.80 m/s | 2,177 kWh | $358 |
| November | 6.59 m/s | 1,977 kWh | $325 |
| December | 6.35 m/s | 1,896 kWh | $312 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Pope County averages 5.08 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.11 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.209, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 18,749 to 27,826 kWh a year, 48% 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 | 5.87 m/s | 18,749 kWh | 32 years |
| 30 m | 6.39 m/s | 22,595 kWh | 27 years |
| 40 m | 6.79 m/s | 25,501 kWh | 24 years |
| 50 m | 7.11 m/s | 27,826 kWh | 22 years |
Counties around Pope County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Douglas County, averages 6.52 m/s.
- Douglas County, MN: 6.52 m/s, 23,554 kWh, payback 26 years (24 mi)
- Swift County, MN: 6.39 m/s, 22,595 kWh, payback 27 years (25 mi)
- Stevens County, MN: 6.34 m/s, 22,225 kWh, payback 27 years (26 mi)
- Grant County, MN: 6.37 m/s, 22,447 kWh, payback 27 years (36 mi)
- Kandiyohi County, MN: 6.27 m/s, 21,706 kWh, payback 28 years (37 mi)
- Chippewa County, MN: 6.25 m/s, 21,558 kWh, payback 28 years (39 mi)
Sun versus wind in Pope County
Pope County gets 3.88 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,133 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,260. 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.