Maury, if you want to attack a kind of renewable energy, you should pick a better way. It's cost rather than any other factor that makes the difference.
If you use levelized cost of electric power for electrical from space it turns out that the cost depends entirely on the capital investment since there is no fuel.
Capital investment depends on the cost to buy the parts and the shipping to get them to GEO. Cost of parts, including the rectenna is about $1100 per kW. This is based on steam turbines, which are about three times as efficient as current low cost PV. Analysis of the mass indicates they will mass about 6.5 kg/kW. That includes the concentrators, boilers, turbines, condenser/radiators, the transmitter and a frame to hold it all together.
This paper (preprint, but it's been published) https://drive.google.com/file/... shows how a substantial parts flow to GEO would cost less than $200/kg. That makes the whole thing come in at less than $2400/kW or 3 cents per kWh.
Coal costs 4 cents per kWh, so power from space (if this analysis is correct) would undercut coal.
Fastest this could happen is 2023 assuming Reaction Engines delivers as promised in 2021. On the kind of fast growth you would expect from something making a very high level of profit, power from space would completely displace more expensive fossil fuels by the early 2030s.
If you think that's a good idea, you might want to analyze power satellites from the end point of producing power for less than electricity from coal.