Typically, solar power satellite designs involve very widely spread beams that are targeted to antenna arrays that cover a wide area. Links between the broadcasting and receiving antenna cause the beam to shut off if it drifts.

The receiving antenna looks something like a gridwork suspended some distance above the ground by poles, and covering many acres. Unlike solar panels, the gridwork is largely transparent to sunlight, and the land underneath can be used for agriculture, grazing, or other uses. Like the grid in the door of a microwave oven, the antenna thoroughly shields everything underneath it from the microwaves. The only perceptible effects might be to birds or some kinds of planes flying over, and one would build these in areas where these would be rare, like deserts off the flight paths. Even birds would notice nothing flying through the beam except maybe a slight rise in temperature.

Lunar transmitters would typically broadcast to relays in high orbits above the Earth, and would retransmit it to the ground with more accuracy.

That being said, I agree (reluctantly, as I would also like to see a large space effort in this direction) with Bowser that in the short term, dumping a lot of this money into research and construction of modern, high-reliability nuclear power plants would probably be a better investment.