For one, maintenance will _not_ be low. Wind turbines (and nothing else is used here) do have quite some maintenance costs, and additionally, you need to keep the greenhouse clean.
The main problem I see is the capacity. 200 MW peak capacity at 60% efficiency translates to 120 MW peak electric energy. If we assume 50% capacity factor (which I suspect is _very_ generous), we arrive at 60 MWe average output. You would need 15 of these to substitute for a single 1 GW nuclear plant.
Wish I could downvote your post for repetition and for just making up stuff.
'200 MW peak capacity at 60% efficiency translates to 120 MW peak electric energy'. This sentence makes no sense. They are building a 200MW plant. That is the amount of electricity it will put out at peak.
You made up the number for 50% capacity figure just then didn't you? You did. I just saw you. So your final figure is wrong.
The 50% capacity figure is from their own website, but I still suspect it to be too generous.
My reason for assuming that the "200" is not the electrical net output is that they write "MW", not "MWe". I have become quite cynical about the numbers on nameplates; they simply stick the biggest number on the thing that somehow appears in the calculation. Maybe I am wrong, and that is actually the peak electrical output.
However, that peak is only reached at noon in june. So, perhaps the actual yearly average output is 80 MW. Perhaps it is even 100 MW. It is still a big toy, and an expensive one at that.
For one, maintenance will _not_ be low. Wind turbines (and nothing else is used here) do have quite some maintenance costs, and additionally, you need to keep the greenhouse clean.
The main problem I see is the capacity. 200 MW peak capacity at 60% efficiency translates to 120 MW peak electric energy. If we assume 50% capacity factor (which I suspect is _very_ generous), we arrive at 60 MWe average output. You would need 15 of these to substitute for a single 1 GW nuclear plant.
Big toy.