This sort of calculation is missing the forest for the trees. Right now, wind is providing 5% of the US power supply. Plants are becoming substantially less exp

This sort of calculation is missing the forest for the trees. Right now, wind is providing 5% of the US power supply. Plants are becoming substantially less expensive as technology improves and economies of scale come to the fore. That's mostly Midwestern ground power. Sea-based wind plants are more efficient due to more consistent wind. Nuclear power provides about 20% of the US consumption, and there's no need to shut down existing nuclear plants as wind comes online. So just increasing wind output by 15x would more or less cover America's needs. With lots of untapped shoreline and lots of untapped Midwestern plains (not to mention new tech making previously unviable locations viable), it doesn't seem outrageous. The missing key here is energy storage, not energy generation. Storage is how you optimize utilization. When plants produce excess power, capture and store, and release when the wind isn't blowing. Even with thermal losses, this gets us in the ballpark of 100% utilization. And there's a ton of investment in this field right now. As for this plant, it wasn't built to make money on electricity. It was built to learn how to build offshore wind in the US, to deal with the technology and political pressures. The goal is to be able to build a thousand times this capacity, or more.