Did the Chinese Just Eliminate the Need for Fossil Fuels?


By trueactivist.com


A group of Chinese scientists have just created a hydrogen gas that is three times hotter than the sun and lasts for 102 seconds.

Though this might not seem like too long, considering how long it would need to be powered to replace fossil fuels, it’s an amazing start in the right direction to solve the world’s energy crisis. A few days earlier, German scientists were able to engineer a hydrogen gas that managed to heat up to 80 million C, compared to the new 50 million C of the Chinese creation, but only lasted a fraction of a second.

The Chinese experiment took place at the Institute of Physical Science in Hefei, where nuclear scientists heated up hydrogen in a reactor called Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST). The reactor produced hydrogen plasma, which is an ionized gas consisting of equal amounts of positive charged ions and negative charged ions.

Credit: Larouche Pac

Credit: Larouche Pac

The ultimate goal of the group is to mimic the solar nuclear fusion that occurs within the sun’s core, which converts hydrogen atoms into heavier atoms like helium. To do this, their first goal is to heat up the hydrogen to 100 million C, which is double the temperature they have created now, and maintain it for 1,000 seconds, which are the minimum conditions for mimicking a solar nuclear fusion. This fusion has been created before in nuclear bombs, but this amount of energy is uncontrolled and obviously dangerous, so the scientists are seeking a way to control this energy in order to use it for good.

Credit: Collective Evolution

Credit: Collective Evolution

Despite the destructive nature of nuclear bombs, nuclear energy is clean energy that the world could really use in order to stop the use of fossil fuels and instead produce unlimited nuclear energy to power their operations. According to Planet Save, fossil fuels are the major cause of climate change because of the huge carbon dioxide emissions. If we were able to one day replace these fossil fuels with nuclear energy, it is possible we could slowly repair the harm we have done to Earth so far, but the carbon dioxide will remain for decades, perhaps even centuries. This is why it is imperative that we develop alternative sources for energy as soon as possible, and these Chinese scientists are well on their way to doing just that.

This article (Did the Chinese Just Eliminate the Need for Fossil Fuels?) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author and TrueActivist.com.


Get Your Anonymous T-Shirt / Sweatshirt / Hoodie / Tanktop, Smartphone or Tablet Cover or Mug In Our Spreadshirt Shop! Click Here



  1. Uhhh nuclear is not, I repeat, not clean. Fukushima any one? Chernobyl? What a joke comparing the “centuries long effects of carbon dioxide to nuclear isotopes et al so of which many remain deadly for hundreds of thousands of years. There is no way possible to safely store the waste. Idiocy.

      • You’re under the impression that people making financial gain from burning fossil fuels and animal agriculture care about air quality? They are the two biggest pollutants. If you want to reduce climate change work to stop people eating meat dairy and eggs. Nuclear power, be it fusuon or fission isnt ideal though because if the potential for disaster and the waste products are harmful to the environment.

    • The idiocy here is yours. There are two types of nuclear power.The article is talking about nuclear fusion, not fission. Yes, fission is in use and produces hazardous waste from splitting heavy molecules (eg Chernobyl, Fukushima). Fusion on the other hand fuses two much smaller molecule to create, as stated above ‘hydrogen plasma’.

      Currently with nuclear fusion, the energy input is still larger than the energy output so it isn’t commercially viable as a power source. This is why scientists are working to improve the efficiency so that one day, hopefully not too far in the future, the output yield will be greater.

      In future Scott, please do some research and don’t post bullshit on the internet.

    • You might want to consider that there are major differences between the Uranium used in Fukushima and the Tritium used in a fusion reactor. Radioactive half-life for Uranium is hundreds and thousands of years, while for Tritium its 12.5 years.
      Also you might want to consider that the fusion reaction in a fusion reactor wont get out of control for physical reasons like it happened in Fukushima. When the cooling is canceled, the fusion reaction will stop by itself.
      Ofc there are risks, but if you compare both methods and actually read about the details, fusion reaction is not as bad as you say.

    • We are talking about fusion, not fission like the bombs and nuclear powerplants of today. They take hydrogen and heat it up really fast and let it spin in a donut shaped magnet, called a tokamak. There, the Hydrogen will fuse together, creating helium as byproduct.

    • uhm yeah, i think you dont understand the concept of nuclear FUSION as opposed to nuclear FISSION.

      in nuclear FISSION you use elements that are on the heavy end of the periodic table (like plutonium or uran) and crack them into lighter elements, which results in highly unstable, radioactive waste products.

      nuclear FUSION means you take very light elements (like hydrogen) and FUSE them together to heavier elements. resulting in nothing but helium which is not, i repeat, not radioactive nor unstable.

      if we succed at using nuclear fusion as a source of energy it will indeed be perfectly clean.

      case closed.

    • You have just shown the reaction that is
      keyboard warrior + wikipedia = a stupid comment

      Nuclear energy is one of the safest form of energy when the precautions and safety procedures are followed correctly and corners are not cut fusion is going to take over in the future and when you weigh up the byproducts of fusion have a half life not even comparable to fission

    • This type of reactor will be completely clean as there will be no nuclear waste created. This is an attempt to create a sun on earth and has will be creating energy using fusion, not fission.

  2. So many of which remain deadly I meant. Hey anonymouse, why don’t you hack the nuke cabal, and publish/expose their truly evil shite? Fuku is the biggest most important event in our puny little blip in history, not to mention WIPP, Hanniford, etc. and this is the tripe you waste your talents on? Come on boys, lots of nice juicy targets out there! You could be heroes, lauded throughout the ages for really, truly striking at the root of evil! Hack the root, not the branches!

  3. Scott, you seem to be confusing nuclear fusion with nuclear fission – two opposite reactions. We currently only use fission, ie the breaking up of heavier elements to create the nuclear reaction. It’s these heavier elements that are deadly. Fusion is where the nucleus of the lighter elements ie Hydrogen, are fused together to create Helium and the left over protons from the fusion of the two nuclei is the energy output. Hence the reason why the article mentions that nuclear is clean, because nuclear fusion is.

  4. @scott, Do you know the difference between Nuclear Fission and Nuclear Fusion? If not look it up.

    The waste product from Fusion is…..water.

  5. @ Scott from what you say, you clearly don’t understand the difference between Nuclear fission and fusion, the dangers are different; however nuclear fusion is 100% clean energy.
    Clean in the sense it leaves no radioactive waste because the elements used are non-radioactive.
    In fission the elements needed must be radioactive for the process to work.
    Fusion is by far the best way, it is essentially like having a miniature sun to power the earth with virtually limitless power.

    Fission: splitting atoms of radioactive isotopes in order to gain energy. Leaving radioactive waste
    Fusion: creating a self contained continuous chemical reaction to produce massive energy output. Leaving nothing but truly enormous heat and light radiation.

    When I say radiation I don’t mean radioactive residue.
    It’s not because something has nuclear as an adjective that it’s bad.

  6. so at what temperature does the oxygen in our atmosphere burst into flames? what happens if there is a breach in the containment of this. Not a pretty chain reaction I’ll tell you that.

    • What? You’re a troll, right? Oxygen doesn’t burst into flames. Flammable materials can burst into flames if it’s in contact with oxygen and source of heat/energy, but oxygen doesn’t burn.

  7. Sorry, but that research isn’t new. The JET tokamak in Culham Centre for Fusion Energy (UK) has been working since the early 1980s and it’s already been overunity. Culham has been proof of concept and the first fusion pilot plant is now being built in France. I was a youngster when the ZETA torus first established a fusion reaction in 1957. The reactor was built in the Harwell Atomic Energy Research Establishment which is no longer extant.

  8. To the author of the article: there is a mistake in the text. You say “ionized gas consisting of equal amounts of positive charged ions and negative charged ions” which is wrong. In fusion plasma, the gas (hydrogen, deuterium, tritium) is fully ionized meaning that the ions are positive ALWAYS. You can change the text into “ionized gas consisting of equal amounts of positive charged ions and ELECTRONS” OR ionized gas consisting of equal amounts of positive charged PARTICLES (ions) and negative charged PARTICLES (electrons).

  9. OR it is the USA HARP project sending microwaves up into the atmosphere every day that that create the fake “climate change”

    Oh yeah and why do we get sprayed in USA and EU ever y day with chemtrails???

    To lower the climate changes or to kill us slowly with heavy metals??


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here