NN, I don't mind criticism, but I would appreciate it if you get the numbers right. For a search term, you might use "geosynchronous collision." I don't think there have been any of them. ". . . large number of devices in orbit," actually it's only perhaps 3000 of them. They tend to be large, 5 GW each. For the rest of your thoughts, you might want to talk to someone who is in the orbital mechanics business.
My objection to nuclear energy cost is simply that it isn't cheap enough to make transport fuels at a low enough price to meet Gail Tverberg's criteria for a vibrant economy. 1-2 cents a kWh for TW of energy is a tough goal. There are other problems, cooling water being a big one.
As to dismissing this simply because it hasn't been done already, there is a reason. It's only been a few years since lasers got big enough and cheap enough to consider using them to power rockets.
Your complaints about solar are well founded, though in some cases solar cost less than any other source of power. The big problem with solar, of course, is the fact that the rated output happens at best only about 1/5th of the time. Solar works a lot better in a place (geo) where the sun shines 99% of the time. It works even better when you don't have to support the collectors against gravity and wind.
Re the rest of your concerns, if you are in the US, you don't need to worry about the cost of this project coming off your taxes. Whatever merits and cost the project may have, it's very unlikely the US will have anything to do with it until we are buying synthetic transport hydrocarbons from the Chinese.