Foreword
I think you are falling prey to the XY problem, since trying to find 153.600 dimensions in your data is completely non-physical, please ask about the problem (X) and not your proposed solution (Y) in order to get a meaningful answer. I will use this post only to tell you why PCA is not a good fit in this case. I cannot tell you what will solve your problem, since you have not told us what that is.
This is a mathematically unsound problem, as I will try to explain here.
PCA
PCA is, as user3149915 said, a way to reduce dimensions. This means that somewhere in your problem you have one-hundred-fifty-three-thousand-six-hundred dimensions floating around. That’s a lot. A heck of a lot. Explaining a physical reason for the existence of all of them might be a bigger problem than trying to solve the mathematical problem.
Trying to fit that many dimensions to only 400 observations will not work, since even if all observations are linear independent vectors in your feature space, you can still extract only 399 dimensions, since the rest simply cannot be found since there are no observations. You can at most fit N-1 unique dimensions through N points, the other dimensions have an infinite number of possibilities of location. Like trying to fit a plane through two points: there’s a line you can fit through those and the third dimension will be perpendicular to that line, but undefined in the rotational direction. Hence, you are left with an infinite number of possible planes that fit through those two points.
After the first 400 components, there’s no more dimensions left. You are fitting a void after that. You used all your data to get the dimensions and cannot create more dimensions. Impossible. All you can do is get more observations, some 1.5M, and do the PCA again.
More observations than dimensions
Why do you need more observations than dimensions? you might ask. Easy, you cannot fit a unique line through a point, nor a unique plane through two points, nor a unique 153.600 dimensional hyperplane through 400 points.
So, if I get 153.600 observations I’m set?
Sadly, no. If you have two points and fit a line through it you get a 100% fit. No error, jay! Done for the day, let’s go home and watch TV! Sadly, your boss will call you in the next morning since your fit is rubbish. Why? Well, if you’d have for instance 20 points scattered around, the fit would not be without errors, but at least closer to representing your actual data, since the first two could be outliers, see this very illustrative figure, where the red points would be your first two observations:
If you were to extract the first 10.000 components, that’d be 399 exact fits and 9601 zero dimensions. Might as well not even attempt to calculate beyond the 399th dimension, and stick that into a zero array with 10.000 entries.
TL;DR You cannot use PCA and we cannot help you solve your problem as long as you do not tell us what your problem is.