[parihaka]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

You're not visualizing the space geometry right. In geosynchronous orbit, you're always in daylight and you don't block anyone's sunlight.

Well yes, except for both the array and the earth to not be blocking each other the array needs to be beside the earth in relation to the sun, on the dawn/dusk line or terminator as some of us like to call it.
As I'm sure you're aware, the earth rotates about the sun therefore the array needs to rotate about the earth once every 365.something days about the north/south axis that passes at 90 degrees to the plane of the earths rotation about the sun, through the centre of the earth, henceforth called the true north/south axis.
Now if you plonk a solar array directly on the line between the centre of the sun and the centre of the earth, keeping it's surface or plane oriented at 90 degrees to that line, or simply put it faces toward the sun, is a relatively easy thing.
If however you wish your array to orbit the planet while not being on that line and still keeping the array oriented toward the sun and on the terminator, things get a bit trickier.
For instance, at shall we call it dual-relative semi geostationary orbit, the outer edge of the solar array will be at least 10 km (going by your wiki article) further from the centre of the earth than will the inner edge.
Or if you want to retrict its size further lets say a single kilometre. Regardless, the outer edge must travel faster than the inner edge lest it become 'disoriented' as regards facing the sun.
How do you propose to overcome this?

Originally Posted by donquixote99

As for the receivers, rectenna arrays do not block visible light. Farm or pasture can be beneath them.

Splendid, but remember to power the good old US, you'll still require at least 238,000 sq k for ground recieving

Originally Posted by donquixote99

To quote the wiki article that you claim to cite:

Claim to cite?

Spacecraft sizing

The sizing will be dominated by the distance from Earth to geostationary orbit (22,300 miles, 35,700 km), the chosen wavelength of the microwaves, and the laws of physics, specifically the Rayleigh Criterion or Diffraction limit, used in standard RF (Radio Frequency) antenna design.

For best efficiency, the satellite antenna should be circular and about 1 kilometers in diameter or larger; the ground antenna (rectenna) should be elliptical and around 14 kilometers by 10 kilometers. Smaller antennas would result in increased losses to diffraction/sidelobes. For the desired (23mW/cm²) microwave intensity [34] these antennas could transfer between 5 and 10 gigawatts of power. To be most cost effective, the system needs to operate at maximum capacity. And, to collect and convert that much power, the satellite would need between 50 and 100 square kilometers of collector area (if readily available ~14% efficient monocrystalline silicon solar cells were deployed). State of the art (currently, quite expensive, triple junction gallium arsenide) solar cells with a maximum efficiency of 40.7% [35] could reduce the necessary collector area by two thirds, but would not necessarily give overall lower costs. In either cases, the SPS's structure would be kilometers wide, making it larger than most man-made structures here on Earth. While almost certainly not beyond current engineering capabilities, building structures of this size in orbit has not yet been attempted.

Do the math yourself if you don't believe me.

Originally Posted by donquixote99

So, millions do not have to starve.

For the meantime we'll ignore my questions about how you get all those thousands and thousands of tonnes of material up there, and how you maintain it, and the energy requirements to do those two things, and instead lets step away from the whole 'miracle space technology will save us' argument for a while and hone down on this.

Originally Posted by parihaka

while the AGW cultists are happy to make claims we're all going to die unless we reduce our carbon emissions by 40%, none of them seem able to tell me which hundreds of millions of people they've got picked out to let starve to death when the cost of efficient mass production of food goes through the roof.

As I re-posted, I'm not concerned about the solar panels leading to mass starvation due to screening the sun, I'm concerned about the mandatory cuts to greenhouse gas emissions curtailing food production.
If we know anything here in dear old Aotearoa, it's how to grow food efficiently.
Now if there are mandatory cuts, the production drops accordingly. The only reason we (the earth) damn near doubled our population last century was because of efficiency in farming, namely, we could feed everyone.
Now, drop production because it's uneconomical to produce due to labour costs, or increase prices because farmers are being taxed for their methane and co2 emissions, or most likely both and the question arises, who misses out?

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Forgive me for assuming you really were as ignorant as your questions suggest.

Forgive me for assuming you read what I'd written.

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Interresting debate style you've got.

I'll just leave you to assess your own contribution to this debate.