The problem with projects not yet built is that they may end up not being built, or may end up being more expensive than expected. Someone needs to put up the money to build it, and someone may need to put up more money to get the project done. And production may be lower or higher than expected.
In other words, you don't actually know what you're going to be owning, and you don't know when you'll have it, and you need to know who will be taking decisions, and how, in the meantime.
Tell me who takes decisions in your mechanism, and how, during construction phase. Tell me who bears the consequences of such decisions. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
More power to your elbow, say I.
I have been involved in several partnerships involving the development of intellectual property, and have a couple ongoing in 'real' property (ie land development), with agreement in writing from a major municipality that they will invest 1.5 acres of prime land in what will be a multi-million pound development - if it comes to fruition..... I also have several potential 'proof of concept' partnerships in energy all small scale and most at a very early stage.
But that is irrelevant.
My point - which I made up-thread, again - is that the real prize lies in refinancing - through unitisation - existing developed assets, with a view to releasing equity in 'Rental Pools' and 'Energy Pools'
This unitisation and the resulting debt/quasi-equity swap is what will change the game, and create new asset classes - which is my thing, of course, as you observe above, but unfortunately you do not follow through on that observation.
Unitisation of your completed projects is capable of giving you more ammunition for your project financing. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
