His error is assuming that the people working on this aren't aware of the potential issues and working to resolve them. I mean, if they can't, they won't be able to deploy this system.

NZ has a strong system of regulations and licensing around transmitting.

Maximum exposure to non-ionising radiation is set out in NZS 2772.1, which is based on the guidelines from the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection.

All transmitters require approval from Radio Spectrum Management, and any system like this being deployed would require a resource consent from a territorial authority under the Resource Management Act, at which point the Department of Conservation would submit on any adverse effects on local wildlife.

Really? Do you think the NZ government is incompetent, Emrod is a scam, and/or PowerCo have not considered these extremely basic issues? The error by OP is assuming everyone involved in this project are morons who have yet to consider even a cursory search of the feasibility of their proposals.

This is such a typical internet armchair thing to do. Point out some Google-able “flaw” and wonder aloud whether the team of scientists and engineers have considered it.

You're making a few of your own assumptions here. I'm op in this thread and yes, I do think this is going to fail because of the physics of it. The free space path loss is always going to lose most of the power (ie, 40-50 dB off the top, and it's the top that matters) for any reasonable dish sizes, freq choice, and distance over 1km.

Why do you think that, though? If the beam is shaped so that it's almost all captured, and there are negligible atmospheric losses due to the frequency range chosen, why should there be high path losses?

The laws of physics say that it's impossible to generate such a tightly focused beam with manageable antenna sizes.

(with or without Near Field considerations)

Why do you think that Radio Astronomy dishes are so humongous?

No magic at play here. The equations are open for all to explore. We are not breaking the laws of physics. Just flexing them with clever engineering.. just like innovators that came before us. For example, the radiating near field of a 2.4GHz antenna about 8 meters long would extend about 1km.

Surely you do not expect Emrod to discuss in detail the subject matter of its patent applications?

The physicists, scientists, engineers, governments, corporations, and investors all seem to disagree.

But some guy on the internet says it won’t work.

Someone elsewhere in this thread pointed out who the founder (Zvi Kushnir or Greg Kushnir) is, and some of his past.. "endeavours". He's started a new company every year for the past 5 years; including crypto and "psychic consulting" which he is no longer the director of. Luckily New Zealand Companies is open and searchable.

I believe this was an ad buy bought by marketing at PowerCo rather than some "R&D" department (hint: they don't have those at NZ power companies). It likely didn't get more than a layman's eye.

Have a meeting with a few stakeholders there next week, will ask about it. Also reaching out to Callaghan Institute who funded this.

HN people only correct the "false facts" that people (with their professional career of 2 or 3 internet searches perhaps) assume when commenting on a site full of professionals in the field that is covered in each publication... If you feel like debating, having basically "zero experience" in the subject matter, make a post on facebook or twitter and receive attention from people who are at the same level of ignorance as you, and return when you have a professional career and important information to share.