Yes, it is that bad. And he makes it even worse by boasting about how "incredible" the efficiency of the "super-efficient" panels and then giving it a terrible efficiency, something in the ballpark of 11% if I recall correctly. And then states that the panels are at a fixed tilt (with the "scientist" protagonist not understanding why they'd choose a particular angle... *snicker*) - so they're not sun tracking. Combine this with Mars's low solar constant. Combine this with the dust that he says he has to keep wiping off the panels. Combine this with the not-all-that-impressive panel area to begin with. Combine this with the maybe 20-30% efficiency you might get in producing PAR with a good LED grow light. Combine this with the fact that these are not grow lights, but rather the normal room lighting built into the habitat (white phosphor = loss of energy). Combine this with the fact that anyone who thinks you can grow caloric crops on normal room lighting is a moron, regardless of how much power you have available to you.
I can break it down with exact numbers for you if you want, but I'll just sum it up for you: it's 2-3 orders of magnitude off, and that's assuming that there's no bottleneck of how many lights the habitat was built with, which would actually probably bottleneck it to 3-4 orders of magnitude off. To people who've never grown caloric plants without sunlight, they can be forgiven for not understanding how vastly much energy it takes. Trust me: it takes a *ton*. The sun at Earth imparts about a kilowatt of light per square meter. Per *square meter* - and that's light, meaning to reproduce the sun, you have to use several kilowatts per square meter to account for the losses. Think of how much power an efficient light bulb consumes. Now think of how many of them you need to use to equal a kilowatt of power consumption. And how much of your light you lose to straying.
You have a few things going for you. The sun goes down at night. The sun isn't always high overhead, so you have cosine scaling. So you don't have to produce as much energy as the above implies. But it's still a mind-boggling vast amount of light to need to produce across a very large area. A very good yield of potatoes (which contrary to his claims, you absolutely will not get in his situation even if you had sufficient light - going into why would be a longer post than even this one) - is about 50 tonnes per hectare per year, or 5 kg per square meter per year, or 11000 calories per square meter per year, or about 3-4 days worth of calories for our anything-but-sedentary protagonist, meaning a farm area of about 100 square meters. If one assumes that the reduced solar output caused by sun angles and night to roughly compensate for the energy losses to convert electricity into light and the amount of light that strays, then you need about 1kW constantly per square meter, or 100kW, to match the energy input from the sun. That's the power consumed by 80 average houses in the US. Not like his hab would have 100kW of lights just built into it....
It's easy to forget how intense of an energy source the sun is, and how much energy it takes to keep a human going.
The thing is, had the author not been totally ignorant about plants (despite making his main character a botanist... a botanist that somehow nonetheless seems disgusted by manure ;) ), there are ways one could have reasonably written in a doable scenario. But botany is one of the many, many things that Weir totally bungled in the book.