Wind Turbine Payback in Rusk County, WI
Wind turbine payback in Rusk 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 Rusk County, WI averages 5.19 m/s (11.6 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 13,837 kWh a year, worth $2,636 at WI's 19.05¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 38 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Rusk County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Rusk County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 6.9 m/s at the hub against 5.19 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,092 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,384, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 36¢/kWh, 1.9 times what WI pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 6.9 m/s instead of 5.19. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of WI
Rusk County is the 1,386th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in WI is Manitowoc County at 7.32 m/s, payback 18 years.
Month by month in Rusk County
April is the strongest month here, at 5.72 m/s and about 1,450 kWh. July is the weakest, 4.37 m/s and 727 kWh, so the best month makes 2.0 times the worst. November to March brings in 48% of the year's output in Rusk County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.57 m/s | 1,407 kWh | $268 |
| February | 5.85 m/s | 1,427 kWh | $272 |
| March | 5.62 m/s | 1,434 kWh | $273 |
| April | 5.72 m/s | 1,450 kWh | $276 |
| May | 5.16 m/s | 1,156 kWh | $220 |
| June | 4.73 m/s | 886 kWh | $169 |
| July | 4.37 m/s | 727 kWh | $138 |
| August | 4.44 m/s | 762 kWh | $145 |
| September | 5.04 m/s | 1,055 kWh | $201 |
| October | 5.30 m/s | 1,243 kWh | $237 |
| November | 5.31 m/s | 1,208 kWh | $230 |
| December | 5.23 m/s | 1,197 kWh | $228 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Rusk County averages 3.82 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.99 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.280, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 10,160 to 19,630 kWh a year, 93% 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 | 4.63 m/s | 10,160 kWh | 52 years |
| 30 m | 5.19 m/s | 13,849 kWh | 38 years |
| 40 m | 5.63 m/s | 16,960 kWh | 31 years |
| 50 m | 5.99 m/s | 19,630 kWh | 27 years |
Counties around Rusk County
5 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Barron County, averages 6.03 m/s.
- Sawyer County, WI: 4.85 m/s, 11,537 kWh, payback 46 years (27 mi)
- Chippewa County, WI: 5.9 m/s, 18,964 kWh, payback 28 years (29 mi)
- Barron County, WI: 6.03 m/s, 19,926 kWh, payback 26 years (35 mi)
- Taylor County, WI: 5.99 m/s, 19,630 kWh, payback 27 years (36 mi)
- Price County, WI: 5.7 m/s, 17,492 kWh, payback 30 years (40 mi)
- Washburn County, WI: 5.62 m/s, 16,907 kWh, payback 31 years (43 mi)
Sun versus wind in Rusk County
Rusk County gets 3.74 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,092 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,384. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.3 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.