this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2025
131 points (100.0% liked)

sino

8217 readers
44 users here now

This is a comm for news, information, and discussion on anything China and Chinese related.

Rules:

  1. Follow the Hexbear Code Of Conduct.

  2. Imperialism will result in a ban.

  3. Sinophobic content will be removed.


Newcomer Welcome Wiki


FAQ:


China Guides:


Multimedia:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Jenniferrr@hexbear.net 50 points 3 days ago (5 children)

So it looks like they can get the power back to earth with microwaves. How efficient is this? Do they lose significant energy in the atmosphere?

This is really cool though. I'm very jealous about what they have to look forward to over in China, I would love to be a part of a project like this

[–] sewer_rat_420@hexbear.net 29 points 3 days ago

It works trust me, I built one in simcity 2000

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 31 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] Pili@hexbear.net 23 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I'm still confused if the efficiency is 95%, 75%, or 54%, but even if it's the lowest one it's still pretty good, higher than I expected.

[–] Jabril@hexbear.net 21 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Overall efficiency of 54% because they improved output efficiency to 95% and receiver efficiency to 75%.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Hotspur@lemmy.ml 20 points 3 days ago (3 children)

It looks like the overall efficiency is 54%, which is probably the aggregate efficiency of the various different efficiencies listed of the sub components. Like you say though, that’s better than I would have guessed as a non-expert, and given that being in orbit massively increases the efficiency of the solar panels, it’s probably a decent scheme.

I’m still curious about the microwave beam though, does it just fry anything that happens to accidentally pass through it? Can you re-aim it at a new receiver plant in a completely different location based on regional power need, etc?

[–] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 18 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Presumably you'd separate it into smaller beams that only focus at the receiver, kinda like how holding up a magnifying glass to the sun doesn't fry everything between the magnifying glass and the target, just the target itself.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Pili@hexbear.net 18 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Thanks!

Yeah, if it really collects "more energy in a year than 'all the oil on Earth'" you probably don't want to be on the path of the microwaves.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] miz@hexbear.net 20 points 3 days ago

just string an extension cord down from orbit

[–] Anissem@lemmy.ml 18 points 3 days ago (2 children)
[–] Abracadaniel@hexbear.net 24 points 3 days ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Jenniferrr@hexbear.net 19 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Yeah I don't really get how this doesn't just cook stuff in the atmosphere on the way down?

Well hey, maybe China can use it to cook a giant bean burrito and cure world hunger

[–] BobDole@hexbear.net 16 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Microwaves are a band of the EM spectrum, and only a few very specific frequencies affect biological life directly. You wouldn’t want to use these frequencies at all, because they effect water molecules and thus would be heavily attenuated by the atmosphere.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] space_comrade@hexbear.net 14 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Well according to wikipedia the safety of this is iffy. It's not impossible to make it safe but it's definitely not without risks to human and animal life either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power#Safety

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kuori@hexbear.net 39 points 3 days ago (2 children)

"china is genociding the very stars themselves!"

[–] Xenomorph@hexbear.net 33 points 3 days ago

China ended planet destroying fossil fuels, but at what cost?

[–] RedWizard@hexbear.net 33 points 3 days ago (1 children)

This is the seed that blossoms into a Dyson Sphrear, isn't it?

[–] culpritus@hexbear.net 34 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

I hope they build the first one in the shape of hammer-sickle

Orbiting solar power plants definitely seems like a step towards space elevators and related capabilities. They are testing some maglev space launchers too. Eventually solar array can be beaming power down to launch site to power up mag launchers. Hell yeah!

[–] Tabitha@hexbear.net 7 points 2 days ago

I hope they build the first one in the shape of hammer-sickle

And make it visible from space.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Sam@hexbear.net 30 points 3 days ago

From what I can tell this is a proposal from a group of scientists that was expounded on in a lecture by one of the lead engineers in the Long March program, as an example of what the LM-9 will be able to do.

[–] 9to5@hexbear.net 26 points 3 days ago (1 children)

drop the Space colonies on the US xi-plz

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Hatandwatch@hexbear.net 29 points 3 days ago (1 children)

What about all the oil rig workers this'll leave unemployed?? There aren't enough jobs to ~~exploit~~ employ people of you get rid of an outdated energy source!!

[–] crispy_lol@hexbear.net 28 points 3 days ago

If movie mindset taught me anything it’s that it’s easier to teach hard working blue collar oilmen to be astronauts than it is to teach astronauts to be blue collar folks, so they’ll be fine.

[–] GoodGuyWithACat@hexbear.net 29 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Cool idea but the US would blow it up faster than you can say "Nordstream 2."

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] kleeon@hexbear.net 26 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (5 children)

I wonder if it's economically viable at this point? I know that solar panels produce much more energy in space and are probably more reliable but is it going to be enough to cover the cost of maintenance? Getting stuff to space is still very expensive

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 25 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I'm guessing they've done at least basic cost/benefit analysis here. :)

[–] kleeon@hexbear.net 19 points 3 days ago (2 children)

sure, but what I'm asking is, is it an actual power plant or a research project?

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 17 points 3 days ago

So far it just looks like a proposal, but a lot of prior research has been done on the subject already. NASA has a number of studies discussing efficiency, costs, etc. I imagine they'll do a trial experiment first, and then depending on how that goes they'll decide whether to scale it up or not.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] sodium_nitride@hexbear.net 16 points 3 days ago

Having a power plant that literally solves the energy problem is worth pretty much anything. Especially for a country like China, which has to import huge amounts of oil through geopolitically risky routes.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Lemister@hexbear.net 16 points 2 days ago (1 children)

AKSHUALLY the soviets wanted to do this since the 80s.

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 13 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I believe they even tested this.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Yuritopiaposadism@hexbear.net 20 points 3 days ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Finger@hexbear.net 24 points 3 days ago

no more half measures walter

[–] SexUnderSocialism@hexbear.net 18 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

But at what cost??

[–] forcefemjdwon@hexbear.net 13 points 3 days ago

I am going to ignore conflation of "scientists say" with "government will" and instead ask how they got that number when the array is quite modest in size.

[–] egonallanon@lemm.ee 19 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

I'd love to see what amount of that energy they expect to get back to earth as for what I understand is the the efficiencies for sending energy back like this is atrocious.

[–] markinov@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 day ago

NASA has already done research on efficiency, cost etc

[–] WizardOfLoneliness@hexbear.net 20 points 3 days ago

Even if it's an absurdly low % of energy collected, guess what, it's constant and practically infinite on a human timescale

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] space_comrade@hexbear.net 15 points 3 days ago

But at what cost?

[–] DragonBallZinn@hexbear.net 16 points 3 days ago
[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Excuse me but the ENTIRE SUPPLY OF OIL ? Like... All of it? All unextracted oil that currently exists? Per year?

That is an absolutely fucking bonkers amount of energy.

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 11 points 2 days ago (3 children)

The sun does produce a phenomenal amount of energy.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] CrookedSerpent@hexbear.net 13 points 3 days ago
load more comments
view more: next ›