Human-powered flight is unlikely to ever be a real player (look how hard he has to pedal just to stay 10 feet off the ground for a minute!)

However, the engineering and material science that was used to make this possible could easily translate into lighter helicopters, electric vehicles, drones, you name it.

Just as flying solo across the Atlantic wasn't really something anybody did much after Lindbergh, neither will anybody do much human helicoptering (?) But the fact that it can be done will help humanity long term. Well done!

+100 to this.

I spent hours trying to track down the cause of my laptop being a fusion reactor on my lap. I can't WAIT to see if this works.

The article says that the battery delivers about half of the voltage of a typical lithium ion battery (which is usually around 3.7V).

So 1.2Ah/g * 1.85V = 2.22Wh/g

Your battery is 30Ah/20 pounds * 12V = 18Wh/lb = .04Wh/g

So yes, this new battery is extremely energy dense. If you needed it to be 12V, though, you'd have to wire them in a series of 6, which would reduce the energy density by a factor of 6. Still a big improvement, but more like .35 Wh/g @ 12V, which is about 9 times better than your camping battery. Not bad.

Absolutely correct. What is needed here is a real power benchmark. A numerical score that incorporates weight, screen size, performance, and battery life. Perhaps something as simple as:

Score = Battery Time * Screen Size * Performance Benchmark Score / Weight

Doubling the weight to double the battery time would result in no net gain under this kind of formula. However, using a more efficient battery or optimizing the computer to use the battery time better would result in higher scores.

Until China starts to face real responses?

It may seem wasteful, but it is in the best interest of scientific literacy in general to debunk this sort of thing. If cold fusion is real (highly unlikely) it will stand up to all the scrutiny that science can throw at it. If it is not, then scientists will debunk it rather quickly and we can move on to the next snake oil crackpot idea.

You must be a conservative.

I hate to break it to you, but the Kyoto Accord is based on science, whether you like that science or not. This is exactly the point: you don't like the science, and neither do most conservatives, because it indicates that a BIG business (fossil fuel based energy) is bad. Since those businesses have a fair amount of money, the Kyoto Accord is pretty anti-fossil fuel business.

Despite that fact, it is still based on valid science.

If there is one thing that conservatives all agree on, it's that you should change the facts to match your agenda, not the other way around.