In short. Presumably the idea would be to 1. only beam down what is needed, and 2. have it replace fossil fuels, which are very much responsible for the change in the planet's energy imbalance.

It would also reduce the energy cost of less efficient 'on Earth' solar arrays, which have problems like intermittency that orbital solar panels wouldn't have.

IF this is anywhere near technically feasible it seems like exploring the idea publicly like this isn't a bad thing.

BUT, after a couple decades of watching proposed miracle tech going nowhere, I can say that ultimately hopium really isn't healthy: we needed to get real a decade or two (or three or four) ago. Relying on non-functioning future tech like carbon capture/storage (or this, if it isn't actually feasible) is nothing more than justification for not making necessary changes now.

Or until sabotage happens, like with the baltic cables and pipes

Are they really losses when the leaking, unfocused energy turns all buildings in a kilometer radius into microwave ovens? Just fill them up with popcorn packets and invite everyone over for movie night. We could watch one of the James Bond movies where the villain has an orbital deathray. I think there's at least a couple of them.

solar panels on earth could reduce it 100%

Or just provide more subsidies for solar panels at residential home roofs

I think climate change mitigation can be the next scam after AI. Once AI bubble bursts they will start looking for new investments and I think climate change is ready to start generating profits. People are desperate enough to start investing money in things that will limit effect of climate change. Who will profit? Corporation that will work on those projects. Anything space related (solar panels in space, geoengineering) will require Space X/Blue Origin. Google, Microsoft and Amazon are already invested in nuclear fusion and modular reactors. Tesla is an energy provider. Any CO2 sequestration projects will require new startups, obviously backed by the same corporations. My guess is very soon we will see governments paying those companies to solve the problem they created. Even more money will be pumped to the 1%. It went form "climate change isn't real", to "climate change isn't caused by humans", to "it is caused by humans but nothing can be done about it". Next step will be "we can fix it if you pay us".

I saw this documentary about a device that can concentrate solar energy, called a "Solex Agitator." The project went sideways when this guy, who looked an awful lot like Christopher Lee, stole the prototype and tried to sell it to the highest bidder.

The British government somehow got involved and sent a spy to...

Wait... maybe that wasn't a documentary.

Microwaves or even Masers. This is nothing new, lot's of studies and experiments. It's not infeasible, efficiency not that bad either. But solarpanles on earth have only advantages, especially integrated in roofs or walls.

It's less about the loss and more about the space required for the receiver and the environmental hazard

Fusion does not exist and wouldn't be in time if we started buildong commercial plants today. Low lead time is the only shot we have.

Space based solar has already been demonstrated, but will not provide substantial power since the receiver is basically a giant solar array and dead zone where life gets toasted.

That’s a real genius plan.

Trivial amounts compared to the solar energy hitting the entire surface of half the Earth.

The problem isn’t incoming energy, it’s outgoing energy. Greenhouse gases reduce the amount of energy radiated back into space and that’s what increases the mean global temperature.

Adding a few hundred square miles of surface area wouldn’t change much.

Pay to win is always the default in corporate world.

A good reminder of the definition of a parasite is it cannot live without a host. These corporations and capitalists can't live without us but we can live without them which makes them a parasite.