No, the problem is: what worst case can happen.
Which is? They run tourist trips to Pripyat! There is an area around it that you probably wouldn't want to live in if you didn't have to, but bear in mind that Chernobyl WAS a worst-case scenario - the reactor exploded. The world's still here.
First: no one can prevent the lifting without an act of war.
Secondly: the beam down would be low density microwaves, no one would that even notice.
I did flag these as opinions! I think that it would require an international agreement before beaming and form of concentrated energy back to earth would be allowed by governments. And if you think that people will be happy about "being bathed in microwaves from a space satellite" no matter how diffuse, you haven't been paying attention to the media.
That is nonsense. The solar panels we typically put on roofs are made from: sand
Please stop saying this. It's like saying "my i7 processor is made from: sand!". It requires microchip grade silicon, rare earths, and copper to make a solar panel. You can't go to the beach and steal a kid's sand-castle to make one. In particular there is a potential bottleneck around the supply of rare earths.
Wind is situational Depends on the size of the area, no?
Yes it does. But what it means is that the total installed power generation capacity will (probably) never be reached which leads us to:
and without better storage or matching generation will not be a trusted generation source.
Tell that the countries that use significant wind power.
It appears that these countries are building LNG and Coal backup plants, such as in Germany? Germany also can import nuclear power from France on a calm day. Another wind-power stalwart, Denmark can import power from the Scandinavian peninsula's hydro power and from Germany's neigbours via Germany too. Wind is a great power source, but pretending it doesn't have issues around base-load at the moment is disingenuous.
Also, offshore wind is going to be really, really expensive on maintenance. Few substances are as corrosive as salt water.
That is why the generators are 200m above sea niveau ... there is no salt water. Also, for obvious reasons: the generator nacelle is water tight.
The pylons will require significantly more maintenance than their onshore cousins, as will the blades.
You probably mean wave generators?
Yeah, I did. Theoretically, they are great but practically the maintenance considerations make them non-economic right now.
Most tidal plants need a big basin that is filled during high tide and emptied during low tide. So four times a day for roughly 2h each, it does not generate power at all. And more important: you need a suitable spot at the coast and a high enough difference between low tide and high tide.
Similar problems with the 2h break periods have current based tide generators. They exist and work well, maintenance and corrosion seem solved problems: but again you need special spots where the currents are strong enough. We build them around the british islands btw.
Maintenance and corrosion are "solved" by very, very intensive maintenance.