[nigelcleland]

Not quite, the instantaneous energy output from the system will be at 200GW when the sunshine is at a maximum. The average output of the system would be 60GW (at a 30% capacity factor). In terms of total energy this would equate to around 525TWh worth (60 * 8760 / 1000). Or, 525,000,000 MWh.

That is, for every $1/MWh that the solar station gets paid for it's output it will receive half a billion dollars a year.

Now, a station of this size would massively depress power prices throughout the region unless there was some form of large scale storage unit which could soak it up.

Probably more impactful is the Saudis are currently using oil for their power stations which is heavily subsidized.

[electricityUser]

If you get 2000 kWh/yr per kWp from PV there and have an installation of 200 GWp you'll end up with 400 TWh per year. If we assume a 25 year lifetime for this installation that's 9600 TWh. At cost of 200 billion dollars, wouldn't a MWh from this system cost close to $21 instead of $1?

Or - taking your numbers - the installation would have to last 400 years without operational costs considered. Isn't that a loss for whoever invests in something like this?

[Reason077]

$21/MWh is very cheap energy. Far cheaper than any modern nuclear plant, and significantly cheaper than most fossil-fuelled energy even before you account for carbon/pollution externalities.

[onetimemanytime]

is that 2.1 cents a kwh? Dirt cheap.

I've read that solar panels (I have one for hot water) might lose some efficacy over the decades but even those installed 40 years ago are still working. I guess at some point it will be cost effective to replace them...or if the math works out leave them working at, say, 60% efficiency, and build a new one. It's not like they're running out of sunny places over there.