Wind Turbine Payback in Rice County, MN
Wind turbine payback in Rice 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 Rice County, MN averages 6.17 m/s (13.8 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 20,965 kWh a year, worth $3,447 at MN's 16.44¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 29 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Rice County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Rice County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.5 m/s at the hub against 6.17 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,127 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,097, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 24¢/kWh, 1.5 times what MN pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.5 m/s instead of 6.17. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MN
Rice County is the 608th 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 Rice County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.79 m/s and about 2,100 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.12 m/s and 1,135 kWh, so the best month makes 1.9 times the worst. November to March brings in 46% of the year's output in Rice County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.55 m/s | 2,020 kWh | $332 |
| February | 6.58 m/s | 1,839 kWh | $302 |
| March | 6.52 m/s | 2,003 kWh | $329 |
| April | 6.79 m/s | 2,100 kWh | $345 |
| May | 6.28 m/s | 1,852 kWh | $304 |
| June | 5.72 m/s | 1,450 kWh | $238 |
| July | 5.15 m/s | 1,150 kWh | $189 |
| August | 5.12 m/s | 1,135 kWh | $187 |
| September | 6.11 m/s | 1,688 kWh | $278 |
| October | 6.44 m/s | 1,953 kWh | $321 |
| November | 6.49 m/s | 1,917 kWh | $315 |
| December | 6.28 m/s | 1,852 kWh | $304 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Rice County averages 4.84 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.9 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.220, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 17,055 to 26,325 kWh a year, 54% 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 | 5.64 m/s | 17,055 kWh | 36 years |
| 30 m | 6.17 m/s | 20,939 kWh | 29 years |
| 40 m | 6.57 m/s | 23,918 kWh | 25 years |
| 50 m | 6.9 m/s | 26,325 kWh | 23 years |
Counties around Rice County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Steele County, averages 6.45 m/s.
- Le Sueur County, MN: 6.23 m/s, 21,410 kWh, payback 28 years (21 mi)
- Steele County, MN: 6.45 m/s, 23,038 kWh, payback 26 years (24 mi)
- Scott County, MN: 6.23 m/s, 21,410 kWh, payback 28 years (24 mi)
- Dakota County, MN: 6.17 m/s, 20,965 kWh, payback 29 years (25 mi)
- Waseca County, MN: 6.38 m/s, 22,521 kWh, payback 27 years (27 mi)
- Goodhue County, MN: 6.14 m/s, 20,742 kWh, payback 29 years (29 mi)
Sun versus wind in Rice County
Rice County gets 3.86 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,127 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,097. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.9 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.