Wind Turbine Payback in Scott County, MN
Wind turbine payback in Scott 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 Scott County, MN averages 6.23 m/s (13.9 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 21,410 kWh a year, worth $3,520 at MN's 16.44¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 28 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Scott County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Scott County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.5 m/s at the hub against 6.23 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,127 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,141, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 23¢/kWh, 1.4 times what MN pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.5 m/s instead of 6.23. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MN
Scott County is the 550th 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 Scott County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.89 m/s and about 2,155 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.20 m/s and 1,178 kWh, so the best month makes 1.8 times the worst. November to March brings in 45% of the year's output in Scott County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.53 m/s | 2,005 kWh | $330 |
| February | 6.55 m/s | 1,826 kWh | $300 |
| March | 6.58 m/s | 2,039 kWh | $335 |
| April | 6.89 m/s | 2,155 kWh | $354 |
| May | 6.39 m/s | 1,921 kWh | $316 |
| June | 5.81 m/s | 1,505 kWh | $247 |
| July | 5.20 m/s | 1,183 kWh | $194 |
| August | 5.20 m/s | 1,178 kWh | $194 |
| September | 6.22 m/s | 1,756 kWh | $289 |
| October | 6.56 m/s | 2,027 kWh | $333 |
| November | 6.54 m/s | 1,946 kWh | $320 |
| December | 6.31 m/s | 1,870 kWh | $307 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Scott County averages 4.9 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.97 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.219, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 17,512 to 26,828 kWh a year, 53% 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 | 5.7 m/s | 17,512 kWh | 35 years |
| 30 m | 6.23 m/s | 21,427 kWh | 28 years |
| 40 m | 6.64 m/s | 24,418 kWh | 25 years |
| 50 m | 6.97 m/s | 26,828 kWh | 23 years |
Counties around Scott County
None of the 6 closest counties is windier than Scott County.
- Carver County, MN: 6.05 m/s, 20,075 kWh, payback 30 years (18 mi)
- Le Sueur County, MN: 6.23 m/s, 21,410 kWh, payback 28 years (22 mi)
- Dakota County, MN: 6.17 m/s, 20,965 kWh, payback 29 years (23 mi)
- Rice County, MN: 6.17 m/s, 20,965 kWh, payback 29 years (24 mi)
- Hennepin County, MN: 6.05 m/s, 20,075 kWh, payback 30 years (25 mi)
- Ramsey County, MN: 5.52 m/s, 16,181 kWh, payback 38 years (33 mi)
Sun versus wind in Scott County
Scott 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 2,141. 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.