The research is interesting, if nothing particularly new save for the morphology of the catalyst (quite a few metal hydrides combusts spontaneously at room temperature, and so does white phosphorus), but there are some remarks in that story which have me raising my eyebrows over their validity.
For one thing, the remark that the discovered reaction will have profound implications on the energy crisis is, how to put this nicely, bogus. Carnot's Law tells us the maximum thermodynamic efficiency of a combustion cycle is equal to 1 - T_l / T_h, where T_l is the lowest temperature in the system (often the coolant), and T_h the highest. In other words, you want high combustion temperatures, as the efficiency goes up! Or in yet other words, combustion at slightly elevated temperatures is a waste of precious energy. Of course, high temperatures put a strain on the materials used to contain such conditions, but that has nothing to do with efficiency.
Second, fuel cells have much higher efficiencies than claimed by these researchers. The trick is that you can extract energy not only from the reaction in the fuel cell, but also from the hot gasses these things invariably produce. Carnot's Law only applies to the last part; chemical energy converted directly into electrical energy (which pretty much amounts to the same thing, really, but okay) are not restricted since they lack the steps involving heat. Commercial efficiencies for large SOFCs are expected to reach 70% or thereabouts. Of course, the fuel cell itself accounts for about 55% (bringing it in line with what is claimed) and any improvement in the cell will immediately increase the total efficiency. But these are hardly state-of-the-art designs, and if the total is already 70%, it sounds a whole lot less spectacular, doesn't it?
Also cause for some raised eyebrows: some of the reactions themselves produced heat sufficient enough to heat the samples to well over 600 degrees C. I'll eat my shoe if those reactions are not what people want: they indicate a high reaction rate, and thus, in a fuel cell, a large current. People are all for large currents because of P = V * I.
Finally, the research doesn't say a single thing about the physical stability of the catalyst (is it subject to Ostwald ripening, for example, as this would seriously diminish the total reactive surface and render it useless) or the chemical stability (can it tolerate low concentrations of CO or sulphur). People have produced beautiful materials for use in fuel cells, but I can virtually guarantee you that if they are not sulphur-tolerant, they are of little commercial use.
The research is a beautiful illustration of serendipity, but I fear the researchers succumbed to the disease of too much publicity :-). They'll return to Earth sooner or later.
