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

sino

8217 readers
141 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
[–] [email protected] 50 points 2 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

[–] [email protected] 29 points 2 days ago

It works trust me, I built one in simcity 2000

[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 days ago

just string an extension cord down from orbit

[–] [email protected] 31 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 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.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 2 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)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 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?

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 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)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 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)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 days ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 24 points 2 days ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 days ago (3 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 27 points 2 days ago

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

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 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)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 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)
[–] [email protected] 39 points 2 days ago (2 children)

"china is genociding the very stars themselves!"

[–] [email protected] 33 points 2 days ago

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

[–] [email protected] 33 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 34 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 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!

[–] [email protected] 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)
[–] [email protected] 26 points 2 days ago (1 children)

drop the Space colonies on the US xi-plz

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 30 points 2 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.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 2 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!!

[–] [email protected] 28 points 2 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.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 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)
[–] [email protected] 26 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 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

[–] [email protected] 25 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 days ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 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)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 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)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I believe they even tested this.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 days ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 24 points 2 days ago

no more half measures walter

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

But at what cost??

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 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.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

NASA has already done research on efficiency, cost etc

[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 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)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 days ago

But at what cost?

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 days ago
[–] [email protected] 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.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 days ago (3 children)

The sun does produce a phenomenal amount of energy.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 days ago
load more comments
view more: next ›