Reliable renewables exist off-planet. Can they be 'harvested'?

First, the solar 'harvesting' equipment (solar panels and such) must be in orbit around Earth at a suitable distance. In a geo-stationary orbit, or at one of our two stable la grange points? Earth 'eclipses' of 'harvesters' direct sight line to the Sun must be eliminated in the chosen orbits. How many such 'harvesters' would Earth need? At least three to cover the entire globe? More?

How could solar wind be captured? Tricky. Don't think solar wind sails cut it. Let's find out.

Second, 'harvested' power from off-planet must be beamed to Earth to suitable locations. How?

Third, ground transmission and distribution wires must deliver beamed power to end-users. Hopefully many of these already exist.

Off-planet gear probably will be hugely expensive and require global cooperation to put in place.

Cooperation? Will countries regard such power sources as nationally secure? Energy security is already a major and growing issue. How much more so for off-planet power?

There's been 'cooperation', of sorts, around emissions reduction promises since the Rio Earth Summit, 1992. But not in delivery. Global emissions continue to grow. Prospects for global cooperation about off-planet solar and wind energy 'harvesting' seem even less likely now.

There is a low-emissions alternative.

Earth-based nuclear power can be located wherever nations choose. Fission technology already exists, is relatively safe, and still improving. It can use existing transmission and distribution infrastructure (FCAS comes in-built). It's long-lasting (80+ years), unlike solar panels, wind turbines and manufactured batteries. It doesn't require power 'extension cords' (inter-connectors) between states or countries. It's a durable, low-emissions, 24/7, alternative to more reliance on Earth-based 'unreliables'.

Look at French nuclear power history. French neighbours also depend on French nuclear power. Because they haven't any.

Why should a 1998 policy banning low-emissions nuclear power in Australia (Lucas Heights aside) be used as a reason to oppose it over a quarter of a century later? Things change.

Apples-vs-apples, why can't its costs independently be compared with all alternatives?

Why can't its roll-out time be objectively assessed against 'unreliables' roll-out times?

Nuclear power is widely used. Australia supplies uranium to users. Why can't we use it too?