Wind Turbine Payback in Taylor County, WI
Wind turbine payback in Taylor 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 Taylor County, WI averages 5.99 m/s (13.4 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 19,630 kWh a year, worth $3,740 at WI's 19.05¢/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 Taylor County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Taylor County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 6.9 m/s at the hub against 5.99 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,092 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,963, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 25¢/kWh, 1.3 times what WI pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 6.9 m/s instead of 5.99. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of WI
Taylor County is the 858th 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 Taylor County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.68 m/s and about 2,034 kWh. July is the weakest, 5.04 m/s and 1,089 kWh, so the best month makes 1.9 times the worst. November to March brings in 46% of the year's output in Taylor County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.27 m/s | 1,845 kWh | $351 |
| February | 6.52 m/s | 1,808 kWh | $344 |
| March | 6.35 m/s | 1,896 kWh | $361 |
| April | 6.68 m/s | 2,034 kWh | $387 |
| May | 6.07 m/s | 1,716 kWh | $327 |
| June | 5.56 m/s | 1,354 kWh | $258 |
| July | 5.04 m/s | 1,089 kWh | $207 |
| August | 5.06 m/s | 1,100 kWh | $210 |
| September | 5.84 m/s | 1,520 kWh | $290 |
| October | 6.28 m/s | 1,851 kWh | $353 |
| November | 6.19 m/s | 1,737 kWh | $331 |
| December | 6.05 m/s | 1,705 kWh | $325 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Taylor County averages 4.67 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.72 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.226, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 15,771 to 25,020 kWh a year, 59% 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 | 5.46 m/s | 15,771 kWh | 33 years |
| 30 m | 5.99 m/s | 19,610 kWh | 27 years |
| 40 m | 6.39 m/s | 22,591 kWh | 23 years |
| 50 m | 6.72 m/s | 25,020 kWh | 21 years |
Counties around Taylor County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Lincoln County, averages 6.15 m/s.
- Clark County, WI: 6.02 m/s, 19,852 kWh, payback 26 years (33 mi)
- Price County, WI: 5.7 m/s, 17,492 kWh, payback 30 years (33 mi)
- Rusk County, WI: 5.19 m/s, 13,837 kWh, payback 38 years (36 mi)
- Lincoln County, WI: 6.15 m/s, 20,816 kWh, payback 25 years (38 mi)
- Chippewa County, WI: 5.9 m/s, 18,964 kWh, payback 28 years (39 mi)
- Marathon County, WI: 6.02 m/s, 19,852 kWh, payback 26 years (42 mi)
Sun versus wind in Taylor County
Taylor 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 1,963. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.8 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.