Wind Turbine Payback in Sawyer County, WI
Wind turbine payback in Sawyer 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 Sawyer County, WI averages 4.85 m/s (10.8 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 11,537 kWh a year, worth $2,198 at WI's 19.05¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 46 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Sawyer County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Sawyer County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 6.9 m/s at the hub against 4.85 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,092 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,154, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 43¢/kWh, 2.3 times what WI pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 6.9 m/s instead of 4.85. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of WI
Sawyer County is the 1,529th 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 Sawyer County
February is the strongest month here, at 5.54 m/s and about 1,252 kWh. July is the weakest, 4.11 m/s and 606 kWh, so the best month makes 2.1 times the worst. November to March brings in 49% of the year's output in Sawyer County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.27 m/s | 1,224 kWh | $233 |
| February | 5.54 m/s | 1,252 kWh | $239 |
| March | 5.27 m/s | 1,224 kWh | $233 |
| April | 5.25 m/s | 1,174 kWh | $224 |
| May | 4.72 m/s | 909 kWh | $173 |
| June | 4.35 m/s | 695 kWh | $132 |
| July | 4.11 m/s | 606 kWh | $115 |
| August | 4.18 m/s | 637 kWh | $121 |
| September | 4.73 m/s | 884 kWh | $168 |
| October | 4.93 m/s | 1,023 kWh | $195 |
| November | 5.00 m/s | 1,028 kWh | $196 |
| December | 4.94 m/s | 1,028 kWh | $196 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Sawyer County averages 3.52 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.63 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.292, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 8,223 to 16,980 kWh a year, 106% 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 | 4.31 m/s | 8,223 kWh | 64 years |
| 30 m | 4.85 m/s | 11,536 kWh | 46 years |
| 40 m | 5.27 m/s | 14,431 kWh | 36 years |
| 50 m | 5.63 m/s | 16,980 kWh | 31 years |
Counties around Sawyer County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Barron County, averages 6.03 m/s.
- Rusk County, WI: 5.19 m/s, 13,837 kWh, payback 38 years (27 mi)
- Washburn County, WI: 5.62 m/s, 16,907 kWh, payback 31 years (31 mi)
- Price County, WI: 5.7 m/s, 17,492 kWh, payback 30 years (40 mi)
- Barron County, WI: 6.03 m/s, 19,926 kWh, payback 26 years (45 mi)
- Ashland County, WI: 4.4 m/s, 8,748 kWh, payback 60 years (52 mi)
- Iron County, WI: 4.5 m/s, 9,339 kWh, payback 56 years (53 mi)
Sun versus wind in Sawyer County
Sawyer 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 1,154. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.1 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.