Wouldn't a generator serve this role more easily? Less physical infrastructure, and what happens if the remote (only a few km) transmitter is also blacked out?

You could use a generator. You could also use a steam engine to power your car. But most of us prefer the cleaner, safer, more efficient solutions :)

Wouldn't you agree that replacing fossil fuel based generators with a cleaner and cheaper alternative is worthwhile?

Not exactly a fair comparison, and dodging the point. Use a hydrogen generator if you prefer. Or a battery for that matter (as indeed our cars are headed). Point is it might be easier to be self-reliant (calculated local storage) than contrive a secondary power delivery pathway.

I can't imagine generators that are used to accommodate intermittent power loss would contribute materially to overall carbon emissions.

You are spot on. this is one of the best use cases for Emrod tech

How do you reconcile the fact that this would still require local storage or generation resources at the receiving end? If to make this safe there are lasers to detect beam intrusions and shut off the link, users who require a steady supply could never depend on your technology.

This is due to the fact that there is no way to reliably forecast when a bird will fly in front of the link and shut it off. Since the receiver will still need storage or generation, it's probably more economical to just do that in the first place.

Hi, not sure how you came to the conclusion that "still require local storage or generation resources at the receiving end". the whole point is replacing those with a steady connection to the national grid. the only difference being it would be wireless rather than copper based.

A transient object like a bird would not have a significant affect on continuity of supply. it is very small compared to the Tx/Rx surface and doesn't linger in the beam path.

Wouldn't you agree that replacing expensive imported polluting fossil fuel generation with a cleaner and cheaper locally sustainably generated energy is worthwhile?

> doesn't linger in the beam path.

You cannot guarantee this. The bird could decide to fly directly down the beam path and there's nothing you can do.

Directly from the article:

> The system uses a net of lasers surrounding the beam to detect obstructions, like a bird or person, and it automatically shuts off transmission until the obstruction has moved on.

Since there are so many possible obstructions that could occur, I suspect that the link will continuously turn on and off. This will be worse than before so you'll need local storage or generation to account for these unplanned outages.

> You cannot guarantee this. The bird could decide to fly directly down the beam path and there's nothing you can do.

This sounds like the kind of thing that is technically possible but in practical probability a once in a millennium event

Being wireless it would be easier to set up redundant links.

Is the Rf exposure to the bird significant?

Else where in thread someone said 100 mw/cm^2. Not great, not terrible. Maybe 1/5 of putting bird in a microwave. Cooking time would be long but you may be able to get it to work

Frankly, I have concerns about birds. Insects are sub wavelength, so they won't be impacted, or at least the impact won't be obvious.

But the birds moving around...

Guess we shall see. That's what field tests are for.