Additional information on this technologies application to transport:
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/426252/gasoline-fuel-cell-would-boost-electric-car-range/

'Wachsman’s fuel cells currently operate at 650 ⁰C, and his goal is to bring that down to 350 ⁰C for use in cars. Insulating the fuel cells isn’t difficult since they’re small—a fuel cell stack big enough to power a car would only need to be 10 centimeters on a side. High temperatures are a bigger problem because they make it necessary to use expensive, heat-resistant materials within the device, and because heating the cell to operating temperatures takes a long time. By bringing the temperatures down, Wachsman can use cheaper materials and decrease the amount of time it takes the cell to start.
Even with these advances, the fuel cell wouldn’t come on instantly, and turning it on and off with every short trip in the car would cause a lot of wear and tear, reducing its lifetime. Instead, it would be paired with a battery pack, as a combustion engine is in the Volt, Wachsman says. The fuel cell could then run more steadily, serving to keep the battery topped without providing bursts of acceleration.'

So think SuperVolt, and no need for hydrogen infrastructure, but the smoothness and quietness of an electric car at all times, plus of course phenomenal petrol consumption efficiency at ranges greater than the battery can handle.

I would suggest that the optimum size of the battery pack would also likely to be lower, perhaps 7-8kwh, so further reducing weight and cost.

Without checking the funding in detail, it seems likely that the University where much of this work took place benefited from DOE funding in one way or another.

I'm not sure why you should think that suburban drivers would want a bigger battery.
As long as it is big enough to make up for the stated deficiencies of the fuel cell, then it provides power at a lot better than the average efficiency of the US grid, especially after transmission losses.
So there is no point in burning NG at a central station, converting it to electricity, transmitting it, then storing it in a battery with losses at every point in the system.

In addition in areas with cold winters not only are batteries less efficient, but they don''t have the surplus heat that you can use by using NG on board.

The only ones who might prefer a more battery intensive vehicle would be those with their own solar arrays.
Mind you, at the latitude of the US that should be a fair few people by that time, as for vehicular use they still have the not insubstantial challenge of reducing the operating temperature to around 300C.

I'd guess production cars using this technology are at least 10 years out.

It is clear though that the money spent on fuel cells is far from wasted, as stationary uses alone justify every cent ever spent on every fuel cell technology, with very large increases in efficiency of fuel use, reduced CO2 etc enabled in this way.

I favour broad approaches to technological investment, rather than trying to pick winners too early.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2013/08/14/redox-power-plans-to-roll-out-dishwasher-sized-fuel-cells-that-cost-90-less-than-currently-available-fuel-cells/

AND

"In the future, Redox plans to produce fuel cell systems for automobiles, which the company claims could triple gas mileage."..

AKA no new H2 infrastructure is a different kind of animal, but again - only the market place or highway will tell.

This fourth decade of taxpayer R&D grants/eleventh year of the Bush hydrogen[kill battery EVs] Initiative still has no fuel cell cars for public sale.

Your not choosing a winner when it's obvious who the winner is, your just recognizing the reality. I mean jeez, that's an old fossil energy warnings there. Next your going to tell me the batteries could blow up.

Isn't this just a repackaged Bloom Box? Seriously - is there anything new here?

It will be interesting to see how the anti-fuel cell brigade manage to diss this! ;-)

This is about what I was hoping to see, to get rid of the ICEV.  Seriously.

BK4 nailed the objections:  this SOFC does not require hydrogen, so all the problems of hydrogen production and infrastructure just disappear.  An SOFC can burn LPG, methanol, ammonia or methane as well as clean gasoline.  Equip it with the appropriate fuel system and a traction battery for cold-starting and surge power, and you're good to go.  It would work pretty well as a PHEV, too.

I'm not sure why you should think that suburban drivers would want a bigger battery.

Because PHEV operation allows much greater displacement of delivered fuel, and greater flexibility of energy supply can only be a good thing.  If there's one thing people should know it's that if a large-scale energy source can't easily be used for anything else, it gets made into electricity.

there is no point in burning NG at a central station, converting it to electricity, transmitting it, then storing it in a battery with losses at every point in the system.

You have a point there.  However, using a 3 kW SOFC to heat your house and DHW while charging your car still makes a lot of sense. ;-)

@Darius:
You are confusing power with energy.
The battery I suggest might be about the right size would be 7-8kwh, but the power output is way higher - that's kw, not kwh.
So the Audi A3 plug in hybrid for instance has 75kw, but a battery pack of 8.8kwh:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/03/a3etron-20130304.html

That sort of set up should work fine with something like this fuel cell, assuming they ever make the 300C version.

@EP:
When the 'delivered fuel' is natural gas, which is far less lossy in transmission than electricity, I can't see the problem.

Taking natural gas at around $1 gallon equivalent cheaper than petrol, and allowing for the claimed 3 times better efficiency, this will cost for the average car something like 4-5 cents/mile.
You can travel an awful lot of miles for the price of a bigger battery pack than you have to have.

As I said though, this does not apply to those with their own solar arrays, who will no doubt prefer to charge their cars that way, as people simply will not think in terms of the foregone interest on buying a larger solar array than they would otherwise need.

The real objection though is that they may never hit the 300C temp they need from this for vehicular use.

Nearer term, ACALs ultra-durable fuel cell seems the better bet, although of course it uses hydrogen.
I can't regard building a hydrogen infrastructure as the show stopper many can.

In any case, this is to be celebrated, as it looks as though it will enable enormous energy savings by enabling CHP in the home and in factories.

The H2 infrastructure can be phased in gradually. First, convert the fleet and home FC-CHP to NG, but using H2-compatible piping and valves. Then, gradually feed into the NG supply piping and depot with H2 made from surplus solar, wind, nuclear, and biomass energy. This low-temp SOFC is great as a bridge toward a full 100% H2 economy.

Many high-tech advanced countries such as Japan, Germany, France, England, etc have no indigenous NG reserve and must rely on imported NG. Thus, they should have strong incentive to start preparing for an eventual H2 economy and infrastructure, to start harnessing domestic energy from solar, wind, and nuclear energy.

It seems to me that H2 has 2 basic problems, high pressure storage w/compressors etc, and/or transmission and distribution. I've always thought that more local H2 generation could partially solve the distribution problem, but injecting increased amounts of H2 into the NG pipelines can make sense. I worry about the NG pipeline infrastructure as it ages, and the notorious ability of H2 to leak through pipe seals etc. Maybe converting H2 into methane or similar makes sense to allow existing pipeline delivery.
At any rate, this SOFC has the potential to be a game changer. The lower the operating temp, the more practical it becomes. I picture a REASONABLE priced <5kw unit as a grid attached home power source for regular use and emergency backup. Depending on size and weight, it has significant potential mobile applications too. I'm not sure how well it works as a flex fuel device, but it seems to have a lot more potential than other fuel cells discussed here.
Overall, great news - keep at it!

@SJC:

I had a massive European study linked somewhere on the effects of hydrogen in pipelines, which I can't locate.
However, this US study seems to cover the essentials:
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/51995.pdf

New lines using hydrogen are not really a problem, as we have extensive experience in designing and using them for industrial purposes.
Leakage is higher but can be kept to acceptable limits.

In legacy NG pipelines hydrogen will be in admixtures, and a analysis and upgrading is needed according to how heavy the mix is in hydrogen.

In practise they will start with small admixtures, and upgrading will be a very gradual process.

Between blending hydrogen into existing NG pipelines and on site reforming the new pipes needed is manageable.

@EP:

Irritatingly, I can't find the bookmarks for it at all, and googling is not helping as it often doesn't for German information.
It is probably different and easier to find if you are a German speaker, which I am not.
However, gradual introduction is just what they are doing, to use both biogas and spare electricity from renewables, stranded wind and excess solar.

However, I have dug out this analysis for the US:
'Relatively low concentrations of hydrogen, 5%–15% by volume, appear to be feasible with very few modifications to existing pipeline systems or end-use appliances. However, this assessment of feasibility will vary from location to location.
Higher concentrations introduce additional challenges and required modifications.
Preliminary cost estimates suggest that hydrogen could be
extracted economically at pressure regulation stations. For a station with a pressure drop from 300 to 30 psi, we estimate an extraction cost ranging from $0.3–$1.3 per kg hydrogen for a 10% hydrogen blend, depending upon the capacity and recovery rate.'

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/51995.pdf (pg31)