Consider the boost cost alone. That would cost more than the sale of power from the satellite for its entire lifetime. It is an idea like the space elevator: Sounds good in principle, but totally unworkable in practice. Just forget it.

Suppose that the satellite has a mass of 10 kg per square meter, which is rather light for an extended structure. It costs well over $10,000 per kg to put something into geosynchronous orbit. Suppose that the PV cells are 50% efficient over their entire lifetime. That gives about 650 watts per square meter. Now the antenna array must be pointed at the Earth while the PV array points at the Sun, so that they can not be mounted on the same structure. Suppose that the antenna array has the same area as the PV array and has a mass of 5 kg per square meter. Now consider conversion efficiencies and losses. For each watt produced by the PV array, only about 50% (if we are lucky) will go through the wires, through the conversion to microwaves, through the atmsophere to the receiver arrays, through the conversion back into electricity.

Even of the cost of the satellite were ZERO, which it will not be, it would STILL be absurdly expensive.

Add the cost of the satellite hardware: (PV array, antenna array, conversion equipment, housing for workers, supplies), the cost of assembly in orbit, the cost of maintenance, the cost of the receiving array, the cost of conversion equipment on the receiving end. If it was expensive before, it is even more expensive now. Look how much the International Space Station (in low orbit, not synchronous) costs. Multiply it by 10,000 and you get the cost of a single orbiting PV station. Realistically (given the usual cost overruns), figure $1,000,000 per watt.

Phooey! Why not just put hamsters into spinning cages? It would be MUCH cheaper.