(1) You say, “Not all the details are in the PLOS article, a bit more in the patent, which I read when it was first issued.”

Can you direct me to the patent? I'd say that would go a long way to ameliorating my skepiticism. Or not.

I dunno how to most effectively answer your post. Should I be detailed in my skepticism, or should I be more pithy? Before anything, I think I should point out that I'm a big fan of alternative energy sources. I've read extensively about them. I want them to happen. More importantly, I truly believe they have to happen. The only question remaining in my mind is… what are the best alternatives?

I am ready, willing, and able to invest, at least to some degree, in technologies that I think are worth while. But I am nowhere near super-rich or anything, which is to say I cannot leverage any alternative. Thus, I am unable to do anything other than address their intrinsic qualities — and hope that some super-rich someone (or some collection of super-rich someones) doesn't alter the playing field too much and quash their potential in the mean time. I guess you could say that nothing more focuses the mind on economic issues (and makes you less partisan) than plunking your money down. And that, I think (even if you don't actually have the money to spend) — is the best way to focus one's mind on such matters.

That being said, I wish I had a nickel for every time some company claimed they were “2-4 years from being economically viable”. That to me is the very outside of the envelope — specifically, that is the area where an idea which has proven itself in the lab may or may not be able to cross the last first few hurdles from being, in Jazz's words, “technically possible” to “economically feasible”. The fact is, the two concepts are often miles apart. Not always, but often (typically, only 2 out of every 10 make it past that point). Consequently, I view your comment, “The authors project that it will take 6-8 years from discovery to application,” as not exactly comforting.

However, if it is just a time constraint, then perhaps it might be possible to compartmentalize the process into a “swappable” battery cartridge, ala what Project Better Place envisions for more traditional chemical batteries.

I'm very curious if anyone there is looking at developing the fascinating hydrogen from starch technology developed at Virginia Tech. The fuel, a starch and water slurry, is easy to pump with existing technology and is non flammable and not held under pressure, overcoming all the pitfalls of a national hydrogen fuel system and produces cars with nothing to leak and burn in the event the fuel tank is ruptured. Enzymes, which are not used up in the process, convert the starch to hydrogen in the vehicle at ambient temperature and pressure, and a typical auto fuel tank could power the car 300 miles. The starch used need not be from edible plants (Kudzu power?). Is anyone exploring this?
http://greendreams.wordpress.com/2007/07/07/hyd...