PV solar has, unfortunately, the same problem as windmills. How do you store the energy for a "rainy day" (heh heh)? Nuclear plants are pretty good at operating in rainy weather and at night.
Coincidentally, that's the size of the largest solar park in the world -> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhadla_Solar_Park
Loosely speaking, that park is about equal to a nuke (most nuke plants are in the range of 800 to 1000 MWe). At about 5% of the cost of the Southern Energy nuclear plant I mentioned. (pedantic note: I think of a "nuke" as a single reactor, the Southern plant actually has two. Many nuclear plants are twins).
Now if only we could get that pesky energy storage thing figured out. About 14,000 adjacent acres of Li batteries ought to do it, right? :-) Or maybe we just put the batteries under the solar cells?
A big factor could be how closely they can be spaced compared to traditional turbines. I guess wake effects would be very different.
Up to now, I was under the impression that wind turbines produced energy, but apparently they just store it. [eyeroll]
Seriously, looking up the specs on the turbine they're comparing against, the actual advertised units are 80GWh per year. I imagine that these units are chosen to reflect the cumulative result of a variable power source plus any required downtime.
If you wanted to compare these against continuous power sources (nuclear, natural gas, coal), then the 80GWh/y is equivalent to 9.1MW, and the 400GWh/y is equivalent to 45.6MW. So you'd need about 22 of these new units to have an annual output equivalent to a single 1GW nuclear plant.