Power from Space ?
Something tells me this is another phurphy like global warming.
One very major parameter in radio communications is PATH LOSS.
The amount of signal power that leaves an antenna requires very high
gain receivers at hundreds of miles distance.
The amount of pass loss could be like putting in 1000 watts and getting
ten microwatts in the receiver !

Would not turn on a led.

Well Bazz some people much more knowledgeable than I on such matters think it might work...

http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/wireless-power-transmission-of-solar-energy-from-space/

Mhaze - I admit I didn't bother looking at your links. If the links are any good - I already know this stuff. If the links aren't - you're just linking to another ideological alt-crap site so why bother either way?
But it's not my fault you CLAIM to know the lingo but don't use it correctly.
You wrote: "is that for at least the last 50 years we have been finding more recoverable oil each year"
"We have more recoverable oil today than we had 40 years ago despite using ever growing quantities of the stuff."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=9984#340790
"finding more oil" "ever growing quantities"
I'm sorry but no matter how many times I read it there's no indication of you having ANY understanding of the difference between Resource and Reserves.
FACT - they're not finding that much new oil as your retarded summary above would indicate.
FACT - they're learning how to extract the oil they've known about for decades but has always been too expensive to extract using today's methods. (Which indicates we're near the end of the cheap accessible stuff doesn't it.)
more...

Mhaze...

FACT - that you believe the higher estimates of how much oil we can access shows you to be quite gullible? If you don't really care about independent audits - I can sell you shares in the Harbour Bridge. Basically, the Saudi books are as cooked as Al Capone's. But because they send the right message - you believe them. Gullible much? As that great Green-Left magazine Forbes says: (winks)

"But doubts about the amount of Saudi Arabia's reserves have persisted for years. In 1982, Saudi Arabia stopped allowing their oil and gas data to be scrutinized. Prior to that, outsiders had some access to information on their reserves. When that accessibility was shut down, Saudi proved oil reserves were estimated to be 166 billion barrels.
However, around 1988 Saudi raised their estimate of proved reserves by 90 billion barrels. Many pundits have suggested that this upward revision was based on internal OPEC politics. Since the reserves were no longer subject to outside audit, there was a great deal of skepticism around the official numbers the Saudis released.

The skepticism deepened when one considered that Saudi's reserves in 1990 were 260 billion barrels, and today -- nearly 30 years later -- they are reportedly 266 billion barrels. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia produced over 100 billion barrels between 1990 and 2017. How then could their reserves be essentially unchanged?"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2019/02/14/how-much-oil-does-saudi-arabia-have/?sh=4d01c2a7b337

Yes Max, very sensible.... reject all the data because it doesn't concur with what you want to be true.

I give a link showing new discoveries in just one year and you assert " they're not finding that much new oil" without providing the slightest evidence for your claim.

You claim " I already know this stuff " yet when I provided a quick summary of the most foundational data you wanted sources for it. Far from knowing all this stuff, it looked like you didn't know any of this stuff.

Mhaze, He seems to understand what it is all about.
Note: Transmit power is 1.6 Gigawatt and received power is 180 milliwatt.
That power is obtained in 1 cm squared.
He claims 96% efficiency, so 96% of 1.6Gw well doesn't matter.
16000000000/.0180 tells you how many receive antenna are needed.
1.6Gw 180mwatt
Presuming they can all be phased correctly.

Hmmm