Seriously, how much change can this article affect? In turn, take into consideration how much change the comment will make on an article that makes practically no change whatsoever. All the article is doing is relaying information already reported somewhere else, and adding the bit about it being Issac Asimov’s idea originally.

The idea in the article is an interesting one. The best feature I could suggest about orbiting solar panels is the ability to point the energy wherever you need it. Setting up a military base in the middle of the jungle or a sandy expanse nowhere near a power station? Just create a portable receiver and have the beam (maybe even just a portion of the beam) redirected to your current position. The same could be said for orbiting space stations that might slip into shadow, or for boosting the power on some futuristic moon settlement.

Sure, a huge solar “sail” would probably get torn by the occasional space debris, but would it really be that expensive of an obstacle that it would out-weigh the advantages gained from its implementation?

My biggest fear would be that the beam would be used as a weapon. Imagine a 10 megawatt microwave beam able to hit any point on an entire hemisphere. Once the AI advances beyond human control, we’ll have spy satellites coupled to solar-powered microwave cannons and each time we disobey the tyrannical, mechanical gods we’ll get an unfriendly taze from the skies.

Then again, I’m not all that concerned about global warming and the rate of energy consumption as I’m sure we’ll nuke ourselves into oblivion long before we run out of fossil fuels. If we don’t, I’m of the mind that we’ll nuke each other fighting for the last few drops of oil, and any survivors will live in a hell unimaginable to you or I and will probably kill themselves to end their suffering.

Can this comment get any longer? Why, of course!

I’d finally like to say to the nay-sayers: just because obstacles exist does not mean we should give up thinking of solutions.