Regardless of where the components are built, the answer will always be "no" because you still need the equipment on the ground to collect this radiation from space and turn it to electricity. The cost of delivering the components to the project site in geosynchronous orbit over the target site is competing with the cost of extra solar panels and batteries delivered to the work site on the ground.

We already have that kind of equipment for handling the radiation received from that giant fusion reactor in the sky, so at every step of the way these plans to capture energy from that fusion reactor and beam it to Earth are going to be competing with the energy from that fusion reactor that is already being beamed to Earth by that fusion reactor.

Everything that happens on the ground to receive that energy is already being done with solar farms. The biggest difference between solar farms and satellites beaming down microwaves is that one of those systems is a directed energy weapon to be used against cities and the other is not. Apart from the utility as directed energy weapons, space power satellites add extra cost and complexity to what solar farms can already accomplish with far less environmental, economic and technical risk.