> the fees paid for the leases for these projects were so high that the projects would not be economically viable in the first place. > I’m not sure what I ne

> the fees paid for the leases for these projects were so high that the projects would not be economically viable in the first place. > I’m not sure what I need to cite but logically when you’ve paid 1B for a lease up front, you’ll want to recoup that through the money you get paid for the electricity you generate. I agree. This is why I take issue with your initial claim. ~6.6tw (aggregate for the 3 sites) -> for $30b (middle range to develop) 1 TWh/year = 1,000,000 MWh/year. That works out to roughly $4.5k of initial capital per MW, initially. Based on a realized electricity price on the eastern seaboard, let's say $100m/tw/yr in profit - roughly $100 per mw/hour, after subsidy, operational cost and based (very conservatively) on a fixed midrange electricity demand. After 4500 hours (just over 6 months of operation) you're in the black. All that being said, if the books were cooked or construction was stalled, there could be outside incentives, but this is incidental to saying something akin to "it's unprofitable on paper" when the math does not bear this out.