If someone has compiled a cost comparison of transcontinental HVDC links compared with the alternative spaceborne solution I'd certainly love to see it.
The space based solution is possibly actually more reliable, as there are actually less components involved that could fail.
One isn't a death ray; but if you only have one, then you need a global power grid anyway.
If you have enough satellites to not need the distribution grid, and they're all in geostationary orbit, then many are over the horizon at the same time and they can (in principle) be combined on the same place.
If they're in a low enough orbit that you only get a few over the horizon at any given moment, you get a substantial penalty from Earth's shadow.
On Mars this would be a great thing for colonies; get past the global dust storms, and it won't matter if you have only a handful of sites; on Earth… pick which failure mode you prefer.
Not for a single device with a fixed wavelength and size; unless someone figures out a way to cheat quantum mechanics and the diffraction limit, how well you can aim light is directly related to the size of your aperture (/antenna) in wavelengths.
Convincing governments you've not cheated with a gigawatt optical laser on your satellites (optical wavelengths being smaller than microwaves makes them easier to focus with smaller parts), that's a separate question. I assume an Iranian one of these would get destroyed by Israel for the same reason they attack their neighbour's nuclear reactors.
