From what I glean here and elsewhere, the 3+ MW he gets from each turbine is quite higher than typical land based turbines. His anchoring system is a low-cost approach. The Lake Erie location boasts higher and more reliable winds. The linkup to the grid is ideal. Few locations match these advantages.
If this facility can’t operate efficiently and profitably on it’s own merits, that should put paid to the idea that wind will be a major energy source to run our economy. Every other facility would be less desirable than this one. If this one can’t make it, then none of the others will either.
Just a ballpark calculation: about ninety to a hundred of these turbines would be needed to replace a typical conventional power plant. At normal spacings, it would take around twenty to twenty five square miles of turbines to do that. The downside is that the output is dependent on weather conditions, and that is not controllable. That implies redundancy and over-capacity. All of which work against how much reliance we can put on wind sources; not to mention the actual financial sustainability.
When we consider the whole of the USA, my opinion is that wind will be a contributor to the total grid, but not a large contributor. Weather and redundancy are insurmountable constraints.