[georgecmu]

A plant like Topaz, California generates ~1100 GWh/year. [3]

In other words, that's a 125MW plant, 5 times lower capacity than the new Indian one. https://lmgtfy.com/?q=1100+GWh%2Fyear+in+MW

Can you explain how it's relevant for this story context? For comparison, a typical coal power plant is 500MW. The new Indian plant is a real first step toward coal capacity replacement.

EDIT: BTW, the article cites Topaz's nominal (or max?) capacity at 550MW; that means its real capacity is 4-5 times lower. I didn't even realize the turndown due to sunlight (un)availability was so high.

[_FKS_]

Topaz is of the same magnitude as this Tamil Nadu plant, in terms of "rated power". However, many people seem to miss that "rated power" does not equal "actual output". Please see capacity factor [1].

For a solar plant like this one, the capacity is about at ~25%. If it was 100%, for a 650MW plant, you would get 650 * 365 * 24 = 5694 TWh / year. In practice, you will get 5694 * .25 = 1423 TWh / year.

If this was a nuclear plant, you would get 5694 * .90 = 5124 TWh / year. Continously, day and night. Without back-end storage required. Big difference.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor