It is not clear, but from the way this is worded, I get the impression that these are non-rechargeable (in the common sense, as opposed to "refillable")? Even if they are not, the energy density is impressive. But it would be even better, of course, if they were rechargeable.
Gadgeteer
@Anne Ominous, It's a fuel cell, not a battery. It's "rechargeable" in that it's refillable. As a bonus, you can refill a fuel cell or fuel tank a lot faster than charging any battery.
byrneheart
What is the waste byproduct from this energy production? When you refill it what comes out?
Wade Hinkle
Wouldn't this become the same issue that we are having problems with corn now. So much of the product of corn is now used in gasoline and other products that it has raised the price of food that has corn in it. The use of sugar in batteries will eventually raise the price.
The Skud
Sounds clever! Excuse me while I sneak away and try to corner the sugar market ...
Craig Jennings
Maltodextrin?
Dear god, I'd better stock up now before it becomes too expensive for home brewing or I'll be left with thin, weak headed booze :( I wonder which Maltodextrins they're playing with and how temperature dependent they are. Anne, I'm not sure on the energy density, "an order of magnitude higher than others." Others being experimental sugar batteries.
Would have been nice to have been given an potential vs Li-ion Benji! :)
Denzellazer
Imagine asking Places like McDonald's or Starbucks for extra sugar to charge your smartphone
Denis Klanac
Wade D Hinkle,
that would be a good thing, the less sugar we eat the better.
coresnake
Another empty promise of better batteries, how many articles like this do we see every week? Yet batteries still suck balls even after all these years.
I'll believe it when I see it.