Wind Turbine Payback in Vilas County, WI
Wind turbine payback in Vilas 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 Vilas County, WI averages 4.67 m/s (10.4 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 10,382 kWh a year, worth $1,978 at WI's 19.05¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 51 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Vilas County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Vilas County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 6.9 m/s at the hub against 4.67 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,040 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,038, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 48¢/kWh, 2.5 times what WI pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 6.9 m/s instead of 4.67. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of WI
Vilas County is the 1,639th 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 Vilas County
January is the strongest month here, at 5.21 m/s and about 1,188 kWh. July is the weakest, 3.95 m/s and 538 kWh, so the best month makes 2.2 times the worst. November to March brings in 51% of the year's output in Vilas County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.21 m/s | 1,188 kWh | $226 |
| February | 5.41 m/s | 1,179 kWh | $225 |
| March | 5.10 m/s | 1,124 kWh | $214 |
| April | 5.06 m/s | 1,064 kWh | $203 |
| May | 4.49 m/s | 790 kWh | $150 |
| June | 4.12 m/s | 592 kWh | $113 |
| July | 3.95 m/s | 538 kWh | $102 |
| August | 3.97 m/s | 545 kWh | $104 |
| September | 4.42 m/s | 727 kWh | $138 |
| October | 4.65 m/s | 873 kWh | $166 |
| November | 4.84 m/s | 943 kWh | $180 |
| December | 4.89 m/s | 1,003 kWh | $191 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Vilas County averages 3.26 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.52 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.327, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 7,042 to 16,181 kWh a year, 130% 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 | 4.09 m/s | 7,042 kWh | 75 years |
| 30 m | 4.67 m/s | 10,388 kWh | 51 years |
| 40 m | 5.13 m/s | 13,432 kWh | 39 years |
| 50 m | 5.52 m/s | 16,181 kWh | 32 years |
Counties around Vilas County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Oneida County, averages 5.8 m/s.
- Oneida County, WI: 5.8 m/s, 18,226 kWh, payback 29 years (23 mi)
- Gogebic County, MI: 4.5 m/s, 9,339 kWh, payback 49 years (33 mi)
- Iron County, WI: 4.5 m/s, 9,339 kWh, payback 56 years (41 mi)
- Forest County, WI: 4.98 m/s, 12,400 kWh, payback 42 years (44 mi)
- Iron County, MI: 4.06 m/s, 6,883 kWh, payback 67 years (47 mi)
- Price County, WI: 5.7 m/s, 17,492 kWh, payback 30 years (49 mi)
Sun versus wind in Vilas County
Vilas County gets 3.56 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,040 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,038. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.0 times as much here as the turbine. 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.