> it's hard to imagine a space solar solution ever being competitive given that you need to build a constellation of the things, launch them into space Someone

> it's hard to imagine a space solar solution ever being competitive given that you need to build a constellation of the things, launch them into space Someone has to do that, once. Yes, that company will need to sell their offering to many different clients over a long time to recoup those costs. One single mining site is not covering the cost of the initial space deployment, obviously. > The idea that the company will be doing revenue service in 2 years is complete hogwash. This reeks of investor scam. Well I certainly agree with that. I'm not defending this particular company. > How in the world is the EIS going to be any easier for "we intend to hit one spot on Earth with intense microwave radiation for years on end"? Compared with "we're going to do a billion small explosions of fossil fuels and emit the combustion byproducts into the air for years on end?" All you've done is write a scary-sounding description. Plenty of things that sound scary end up being safe in the end. It doesn't take much imagination to see a possibility that this technology could easily be the best option for delivering power to a highly protected area. Literally any technology sounds ridiculous if you describe it like that. "You wish to sail a ship up stream by lighting a fire under its decks, I have no time for such nonsense." - Napoleon Bonaparte on the use of ironclads