Not even close. Your solar array too has a capacity factor - in the ballpark of 15% if fixed, maybe 35% or so if tracking. Then you have your panel efficiencies. The best large scale commercial panels are 22-23% efficiency. You might get 30%-ish if you used absurdly-crazy-expensive spectrolab cells. Then factor in dust constantly settling on the panels - say 25% loss even with regular cleaning. And Mars's solar constant is only 588W/m^2 *in space*. Earth's is about 1kW/m^2 *on the surface*, 1,4kW in space.
I went with 50% efficiency reduced to 0.7 by morning/evening angles with lack of tracking (Acidia Planitia is equatorial latitudes). That's 2035 space-quality technology. Dust with daily cleaning is non-factor; Opportunity operated for years within some 40-50% loss due to dust, so with daily cleanings it's really non-issue, maybe 2% loss, your 25% would take months of negligence. Due to thin atmosphere, Mars is only something like 560W on surface.
6kW of power consumption for LED lights on a rover?
Only when it switches all of them on. There's a difference between "driving usage" where it may be 500W, and switching the search-lights for emergency when you, say, search for a lost astronaut. In that case 6KW is reasonable.
How the heck would you even cool a 500W LED spotlight (let alone 1kW, let alone 12 of them) in the near-vacuum atmosphere of Mars?
I'd need to come up with estimate of radiation of the surface of Hab, but it's large, white and in very cold environment. There's a plenty of cooling capacity in environment this cold. Yes, air-cooling capacity is poor, but radiational capacity is pretty good considering the radiating surface and the temperature gradient.
I wish you were here so I could show you what a 600W LED grow light looks like. It's blinding. The whole world looks pink for a while afterward. And they're massive, heavy things. To put it another way: 600W LED is equivalent to about 5000W incandescent.
The area lit by them shouldn't be brighter than sunlit area - actually, 25% of sunlight strength would suffice.
Could have, would have, should have. But as it stands, it's 2-3 orders of magnitude off.
We can agree to disagree, I'd say about an order :) But yes, I can accept the botany part of the book was borked. There are more serious errors. Had Weir played Kerbal Space Program for several days, the whole "blowing up the airlock" would be gone - at 2mm/s^2 making a perfect encounter with target moving 12m/s relative to you is some 8 hours.
Still, I have to give it to him: he tried, he did his best, he only made errors because he failed to research even more even though he researched a plenty. We can now hope for a book more accurate, with better science and less errors, now that he's opened the path and showed there's a demand for accurate sci-fi. Even if his own failed to be very accurate.