I read the source and you are wrong. Here is the official website and I quote:
"This is a project that will generate up to 350MW of clean renewable electricity to power over 91,000 homes"
"This is a project that will generate up to 350MW of clean renewable electricity to power over 91,000 homes"
91,000 homes would be about 91,000 * 3,000 kWh / year = 273 TWh / year. You need an average of 31 MW over a year to produce this, which roughly tracks 350 MW with ~10% capacity factor. So over a year this seems to be correct.
On a day to day basis however the project only includes 700 MWh of storage. That's about 24h of the electricity consumption of 91,000 homes. A single cloudy winter day and those batteries are empty. So if you look at shorter time periods than a full year there's a huge variation in how many households can actually be reliably powered by such an installation. It's likely somewhere between 1,000 (several days of cloudy winter) and 350,000 homes (sunny summer).
> It's likely somewhere between 1,000 (several days of cloudy winter)
How do you figure? Solar technology is moving so rapidly you can't even look at the efficiency of the panels from a few years ago to do the math. Is the 1,000 number a guess or did you do the math for the 900,000 some panels they will have at that site?
Is it weasel language that the press releases don't include the fact that Westinghouse Electric declared bankruptcy over the Vogtle nuclear build in discussion? I don't see the fact that the U.S. government has given $8.3 billion of loan guarantees to help finance construction of the Vogtle reactors included in press releases either.
Considering this solar installation is a for-profit venture in cloudy UK and will reduce carbon output without subsidies, I'm calling it a win whether it powers 1000 houses or 350,000.