To elaborate, I'll quote wikipedia:
Skin effect is the tendency of an alternating electric current (AC) to distribute itself within a conductor so that the current density near the surface of the conductor is greater than that at its core. That is, the electric current tends to flow at the "skin" of the conductor, at an average depth called the skin depth. The skin effect causes the effective resistance of the conductor to increase with the frequency of the current because much of the conductor carries little current. Skin effect is due to eddy currents set up by the AC current. At 60 Hz in copper, skin depth is about 8.5 mm. At high frequencies skin depth is much smaller.
Methods to minimise skin effect include using specially woven wire and using hollow pipe-shaped conductors.
So at very high frequencies, only a small part of a solid copper wire will be transmitting the electricity. The resistance goes up as most of the copper goes unused. However, the problem becomes one of geometry. If you give the wire enough surface area to volume (er... perimeter length to cross-section), then the conductor material can be utilized effectively. The ideals shape would be a bundle of tiny hollow tubes made of extremely thin walls. Ie, it would look like carbon nanotubes!
Still, we should calculate what is the skin depth for a 0.5 petahertz current. The wiki article gives a simple formula, but I'll just use a javascript applet:
http://daycounter.com/Calculators/SkinEffect/Skin-Effect-Calculator.phtml Note that it assumes the material is copper, not carbon, but it's good enough to ballpark. For 0.5 petahertz, the skin depth is 3 nanometers. That's teeny, but perfectly in line with the thickness of nanotube walls! So there we go, transmitting light as electricity is another application for carbon nanotube wires whenever (if ever) we can reliably make them.
Awesome.
EDIT: We still need to rectify this AC. But if a PV can do it at the source, why can't it be done downstream with the same semiconducting material? This is something I don't know much about.
Off-topic: I don't think inventing something that requires an unavailable (but not crazy) component is grounds for rejecting the patent. Of course, you're wasting money on the application hoping the patent won't expire before the damn thing comes into existence.