Wind Turbine Payback in Wexford County, MI
Wind turbine payback in Wexford 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 Wexford County, MI averages 6.23 m/s (13.9 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 21,410 kWh a year, worth $4,652 at MI's 21.73¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 22 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Wexford County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Wexford County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 6.4 m/s at the hub against 6.23 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,063 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, 1.1 times what MI pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 6.4 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 MI
Wexford County is the 550th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in MI is Keweenaw County at 7.4 m/s, payback 15 years.
Month by month in Wexford County
January is the strongest month here, at 7.01 m/s and about 2,305 kWh. July is the weakest, 5.00 m/s and 1,067 kWh, so the best month makes 2.2 times the worst. November to March brings in 50% of the year's output in Wexford County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 7.01 m/s | 2,305 kWh | $501 |
| February | 7.03 m/s | 2,092 kWh | $455 |
| March | 6.58 m/s | 2,040 kWh | $443 |
| April | 6.73 m/s | 2,061 kWh | $448 |
| May | 5.98 m/s | 1,662 kWh | $361 |
| June | 5.27 m/s | 1,186 kWh | $258 |
| July | 5.00 m/s | 1,067 kWh | $232 |
| August | 5.16 m/s | 1,156 kWh | $251 |
| September | 5.79 m/s | 1,489 kWh | $324 |
| October | 6.56 m/s | 2,023 kWh | $440 |
| November | 6.86 m/s | 2,141 kWh | $465 |
| December | 6.91 m/s | 2,240 kWh | $487 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Wexford County averages 4.93 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.95 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.213, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 17,622 to 26,685 kWh a year, 51% 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 | 5.72 m/s | 17,622 kWh | 26 years |
| 30 m | 6.23 m/s | 21,436 kWh | 22 years |
| 40 m | 6.63 m/s | 24,343 kWh | 19 years |
| 50 m | 6.95 m/s | 26,685 kWh | 17 years |
Counties around Wexford County
None of the 6 closest counties is windier than Wexford County.
- Missaukee County, MI: 5.29 m/s, 14,538 kWh, payback 32 years (24 mi)
- Lake County, MI: 5.54 m/s, 16,326 kWh, payback 28 years (26 mi)
- Osceola County, MI: 5.54 m/s, 16,326 kWh, payback 28 years (26 mi)
- Grand Traverse County, MI: 6.23 m/s, 21,410 kWh, payback 22 years (27 mi)
- Kalkaska County, MI: 5.29 m/s, 14,538 kWh, payback 32 years (34 mi)
- Manistee County, MI: 5.77 m/s, 18,006 kWh, payback 26 years (38 mi)
Sun versus wind in Wexford County
Wexford County gets 3.64 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,063 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 2.0 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.