[racbart]

Taking aside feasibility of this, having a single source of power delivering 33% of world's energy is a terrible idea. Especially if it would not be quick to fix or replace if it'd had been completely destroyed. Such a single point of failure would become a single point of doom if the world suddenly would be cut off of third of its energy for weeks or months.

[XorNot]

Except it's not a single source. It would be dozens of satellites, hundreds ground stations etc. This is like claiming that "coal power" is a single point of failure.

[racbart]

“According to his calculation, one such satellite is able to supply a third of total energy needed by humans.”

I'm just commenting on what they wrote and I see nothing about a farm of satellites in the article. Perhaps the original source is more clear about it. Or maybe this technology doesn't scale down well and that's the reason they're writing about one powerful satellite?