That's a very nice figure for context. So the energy required would be about 26% of that. That means it's more power than we could ever hope to capture from solar alone, as only about 29% of the surface is land and some of that isn't particularly great for solar (looking at you rain forests and Antarctica:)

Unless we use space-based systems instead, which would make that a kind of power requirement trivial, ignoring the costs of course ;)

I'm not following the math.

Taking the US as an example: depending on who you ask, we could generate enough power for the US with somewhere between 10000 square miles (Elon math) and 21250 square miles (pretty common number given by multiple other sources) of PV.

That is about a fifth of the state of Nevada. A lot of PV, to be sure, but far from beyond hope.

And that assumes nothing but PV, which is unrealistic. We capture a bunch of the sun's energy as wind and rain.

Sorry for the confusion - I was referring to the energy requirements of the interstellar mission, not the power generation of the world.