What a waste of time, effort and money. If it has to be an investment in fossils, why not in something that makes at least a little bit of sense? E.g.: http://www.dlr.de/dlr/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-10081/151_read-6318//year-all/#gallery/8873

Maybe I've misunderstood you but I and the rest of the world want to abort pollution. I consider any type of fossil driven extender solely as a means of transition. I'm confident that it's just a matter of time until batteries with appropriate energy and power density, at reasonable prices, appear on the market rendering extenders obsolete. Beyond that, I would only accept FCs (with reasonable prices) as range extenders. It's not only a matter of dwindling resources but also the increasing pollution problematic. I'm not keen on keeping on going as we have been in the past until we have "Beijing conditions" worldwide.

The energy density of the SCiB is certainly attractive but the power density is less alluring. Personally, I prefer the new Panasonic 4 Ah cell with a volumetric energy density of 800 Wh/L. A single cell has the energy equivalent of 13.6 Wh. The power density is higher than that of the SCiB cells. This will more than likely be the next building block in Tesla's newest battery innovation.

"Are there many known reasons why so many very high..." Any manufacturer entering the market with any type of product intends to sustain on the market and do everything to secure his position. ICEs have reached such a high degree of mechanical and electronic complexity that it is no longer possible to carry out repairs on them with a "pair of pliers and strands of barbed wire" as was virtually the case decades ago. Pushing the efficiency ever higher and improving fuel consumption and emissions was a guarantee for the manufacturers to secure their position in business. I.O.W. You must take your car to an authorized dealer to get your car serviced or repaired. Special-to-type-tooling is not available to the garage around the corner to carry out appropriate maintenance tasks. This is an excellent racket for sustainable business (certainly not for the customers) and those profiting from such a system would be more than foolish to enhance any innovation that may endanger their own position. They have control of the situation and are keen to assure that everything remains as it is for as long as possible; irregardles of pollution, efficiency, health etc. etc..

I'm convinced that this is a far better option. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6074/1326.full.pdf?searchid=1&hits=10&resourcetype=HWCIT&maxtoshow=&RESULTFORMAT=&FIRSTINDEX=0&fulltext=Graphene%20Capacitor

Smell? You mean the stench.

Honeywell should forfeit their lobby and do something sensible e.g.: http://spin-project.eu/index.php?node_id=58.29&lang_id=1 All these senseless discussions about this or that refrigerant are completely irrelevant. Apparently, those involved in such needless discussions, have never heard of the Schukey-motor. The only problem with this motor is Honeywells attitude, "it's not invented by us".

All these senseless discussions about this or that refrigerant are completely irrelevant. Apparently, those involved in such needless discussions, have never heard of the Schukey-motor.

This video does not really present anything new beyond what is already known about GM's Volt. The range extender in the Volt is principally acceptable, not however, the manner in which these principles are realized. First of all, a three cylinder engine is more efficient than a four cylinder. Total friction losses etc. are less from three - than from four cylinders and respective no. of valves and camshaft. Using regenerative energy (solar or/and wind) to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen via alectrolysis and combining the hydrogen with atmospheric CO2 via a catalytic process to methane; methane is equivalent to natural gas. A 3-cylinder turbo gas engine would deliver about 100 to 120 kW; sufficient to drive a gnerator to supply the electric drive train. Such an engine would be highly efficient, be CO2 neutral and would reduce the "dead weight" presently inherent to the Volt. There is absolutely nothing new about any of the technologies involved in such a version. The present infrastructure of gas stations could be used without any problems and financial investment would be low. That is the least I would expect before even being tempted to purchase a Volt. Because most of the driving can be expected to be purely electric, the 3-cylinder "discomfort" would be negligible. In my opinion, GM still has some homework to do.

IF... the life expectancy meets or excells that of conventional FCs and the power to weight/volume ratio is =/>, then rapid price drops can be expected.

"Imagine if the shale boom is replicated all over the world, perhaps centuries worth of cheap oil.. maybe" I literally detest any suggestions increasing the CO2 content in the already ravaged atmosphere! Are the implications of "Katrina" and "Sandy" insufficient? As long as only others suffer but oneself is exempted, everything is all right? Eh??

On the contrary! Palladium is much more abundant than platinum. Platinum is so painfully expensive because it's a scarce and limited element. My question was intended more in the direction of undesired molecular / chemical activity or low efficiency that would perhaps thwart its usage in FC applications.

Palladium belongs to the same family of elements as platinum. Its behaviour is not the same but very similar to that of platin. It's far cheaper than platinum. Does anyone know, why palladium is not used in lieu of platinum?

@A D: I agree with you totally. The other possible direction would be like the one taken in India. A German engineering group supported Indian locals in developing a special Jatropha type for production of bio-diesel. Once they had developed a type suited for their purpose, they planted it in arid regions where it was not competing with normal food production. They knew that on fertile land, normally used for food production only, the yield of Jatropha would be much higher. Being driven by greed, it was only a short time that they resisted all temptations until they started to plant Jatropha everywhere; also on fertile land used for food production. The result is that they have adequate quantities of bio-diesel but the food production is steadily decreasing. They're slowly realizing that they can't still their hunger with bio-diesel nor eat the money they're earning with it.

Naw! That's not a blended wing design. But this is: http://www.google.de/firefox?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:de:official

The innovative solution that Lufthansa demonstrated several months ago is far more appealing. The fuel cell has been installed in the bird itself and delivers power to the in-wheel motors in the front gear. Aditionally, all the elctric loads on board are supplied from the 100 kW FC. No more terminal tractors and far less pollution.

DOD applies to every battery type even more so for Li-Ion. The less energy that is drawn from a battery before topping it up again, the longer its calendar life will be. E. g. When I purchased my cell phone it was equipped with Ni-Cads. The first thing I did was to replace the batteries with NiMh. Most of the time my cell phone is located in the charging cradle. Meanwhile the batteries are over 10 years old and still going strong. My sister has the same cell phone type and uses the same type NiMh cells as mine. In the meantime, she has the fourth set of cells in the phone because the unit is usually depleted (while carying on a conversation) and sees the cradle for charging only after the cells have been completely depleted. That is not contributable to total life.

Well, I could imagine that a synthesis of silicon with Aerographite could lead to acceptable results. This material can be compressed to approx. 70% of its original volume. Decompression has no adverse effects and makes the material even more stable than it was in the beginning.

It doesn't matter how many barrels are recoverable. WE DON'T WANT ANY OF IT NOR THE SUBSEQUENT POLLUTION! We want EVs.

@ citizen: Do you know how gas guzzlers were started before the electric starter was invented in 1911 bei Charles Kettering? Most manufacturers (not all) included electric starters in their cars by 1920. Prior to that date (and also later), a car was started maually via a crank. And you have the nerve to complain about plugging a chord into a socket to charge a battery. You should be ashamed of yourself! In 1956 - 57 and 58 I worked on a farm during summer vacation. I almost wrenched my intestines out getting that John Deere started by spinning the flywheel from hand. You don't seem to know what physical work is!

Yeah! You're so right. The purchase of a 3-D flatscreen TV with Dolby Surround for $8k would be a much more sound investment. Not to forget the newest Apple smart phone with all optional Apps included. And, while we're at it, add an outdoor swimming pool with an oil heating system for all year operation.

I presume that this investment is a waste of time, effort and money. They should have invested that money in R&D for FCs as range extenders.

Umm. How do arrive at -16° C? -4° F is a total of 32 F° (freezing point)+ (-4° F)= 36 F°. 1 F° = 1.8 C°. 36 F° : 1.8 = -20 ° C.

Evidently someone doesen't know what they're talking about. The elementary component of a battery pack is a cell. The battery pack consists of an array of cells switched in parallel and in series as needed. An electric drive train is comprised of a battery pack, BMS, inverter/controller, regen. facilities and electric motor. "Lithium-ion and molten-salt battery costs will approach $500/kWh by 2022, reducing the high capital cost of emerging grid storage technologies." And just imagine, the total price of the complete car is even more.

Are you talking about battery costs or battery prices? A 100Ah Thundersky 3.6V cell sells for $107.50. 3.6V x 100Ah = 360Wh or 0.36kWh Roughly 3 cells = 1kWh at $107.50/cell = $322,50. THAT IS THE PRICE NOW AND NOT IN 2 OR 5 OR 10 YEARS FROM NOW. http://alliancerenewableenergy.com/Thunder-Sky-LiFeYPO4-Batteries_c3.htm