TECHNOLOGY FOCUS - INORGANIC CHEMISTRY - Preferred Components: The metal oxide is TiO2, indium tin oxide (ITO), ZnO, WO3, RuO2, IrO2, SnO2 and/or NiO. The substrate is aluminum, silicon or transparent conductive glass (ITO/glass).    TECHNOLOGY FOCUS - INSTRUMENTATION AND TESTING - Preferred Method: The method further involves eliminating the porous aluminum oxide template. The porous template is an anodized aluminum oxide, formed by anodizing an aluminum plate or a film; or by depositing aluminum on the first electrode and anodizing the deposited aluminum. The first and second electrode is formed by using metal, metal oxide or conductive polymer. The second electrode is formed by using at least one method selected from electroplating, electroless plating, sol-gel coating and electropolymerization. The electroplating is done by using the metal and/or metal oxide. The sol-gel coating is done by using the metal oxide. The electropolymerization is done by using at least one precursor of conductive polymer.    TECHNOLOGY FOCUS - METALLURGY - Preferred Components: The metal is Au, Pt, Ag, Cu, Al, Cr and/or their alloys.    TECHNOLOGY FOCUS - ORGANIC CHEMISTRY - Preferred Components: The metal oxide is TiO2, indium tin oxide (ITO), ZnO, WO3, RuO2, IrO2, SnO2 and/or NiO. The substrate is aluminum, silicon or transparent conductive glass (ITO/glass).    TECHNOLOGY FOCUS - POLYMERS - Preferred Components: The conductive polymer is poly-para-phenylene, polyphenylenevinylene, poly-3,4-ethylenedoxythiophene (PEDOT), polypyrrole, polyaniline, polyazulene, polythiophene, polypyridine, polyindole, polycabazole, polyazine and/or polyquinone. EXAMPLE - For preparing a porous template on a first electrode, an aluminum layer was vacuum-evaporated on an indium tin oxide (ITO) deposited glass substrate forming smooth surface aluminum layer. A surface of the substrate having evaporated aluminum layer was put into an acetone solution and cleaned the surface. The cleaned substrate was put into 0.3M oxalic acid anodization bath and was connected to anode. A platinum (Pt) plate as a reference electrode was put into anodization bath. After performing anodization process, the oxide aluminum anode layer formed inside the nanopores was eliminated by putting the rinsed substrate into phosphoric acid (5 weight %) and thus aluminum oxide layer was formed on the ITO transparent electrode surface of the porous template. The porous template was put with polymerization solution (0.1M LiClO4/acetonitrile solution with 10mM 2.3-dihydrothieno(3.4-b)-1,4-dioxin) and was connected to the anode. Also, Ag/AgCl electrode and Pt electrode were put as counter electrode. The electropolymerization was performed. Therefore, poly-3,4-etilendioxityopen (PEDOT) was generated inside the nanopores in the porous template. The surface area of electrode system prepared by this method had pore density of 70% for one side of the porous template with nanopore diameter of 50 nm. The surface area of the electrode system was 30 times enlarged compared to surface area of a flat electrode. An electrochromic device (test) was prepared by arranging the electrode on an ITO deposited glass substrate, arranging another ITO deposited glass substrate on the opposite side of the electrode and sealing the arranged ITO deposited glass substrate remaining one side unsealed by using an epoxy resin. A 0.1M LiClO4/acetonitrile electrolyte solution was injected through the unsealed side and the unsealed side for injecting was then sealed by using a sealant. For preparation of comparative electrochromic device, an ITO deposited glass substrate was put with polymerization solution and was connected to anode. Also, an Ag/AgCl electrode as reference and Pt electrode as counter electrode were used and performing electropolymerization PEDOT formed on ITO substrate. On the prepared substrate, another ITO deposited glass substrate was arranged and they were sealed. During sealing, one side was leftunsealed so that the electrolyte solution of 0.1M LiClO4/acetonitrile was injected. Then the unsealed side was sealed. Response speeds of test and comparative devices were analyzed. The response speed (second) for test/comparative was found to be 0.1/approximately 300 i.e. test device had response speed 3000 times faster than comparative device.