Imagine a battery for your phone that will charge to 70% full in two minutes, and last for 20 years

Imagine having a battery inside your phone that can quickly recharge to 70% full in two minutes. Now, imagine that this cell will last 20 years before requiring a replacement. These are some of the specs of the lithium ion batteries being developed at Nanyang Technology University. This is accomplished by speeding up the chemical reactions inside the cell...
This is a discussion for a news article. To read the whole news, click here


59. wyrishman

Posts: 39; Member since: May 11, 2014

I completely agree with you both, Slammer and VZWuser76. There was an article years ago about converting the heat from a smartphone's screen/processor and converting it into battery power. While there may have been engineering or production issues, it's just as likely that the idea was was derailed from not only battery manufacturers, but especially charger manufacturers. Who would need spare chargers with a self-charging device or one that can charge in 5 minutes? There's definitely foul play afoot which sucks for us consumers. Those innovations could revolutionize the market.

24. designerfx

Posts: 76; Member since: Mar 26, 2013

You couldn't be further from the truth. Your 82 toyota may have had what, 82 horsepower? Today we have cars getting 46 mpg that have 160+, and do a bunch more and are far more reliable than an 82 which is falling apart by now. New cars are a hell of a lot safer while being lighter, too. Please disconnect your cable modem from the internet before you consider posting anything, as you are not capable of thinking. If you think this battery wouldn't ever make it to the US, I'd like to remind you where it was developed - which confirms it'll make it here. The reason it wasn't developed in the US is because of our failure as a nation.

31. Penny

Posts: 1844; Member since: Feb 04, 2011

Cars in particular are one industry where the argument of old school stuff being built to last doesn't necessarily work. Tech in general sees lots of improvements, and the new generations will almost always be better than the old generations. While we may have in our minds lots of anecdotal evidence that older items were built to last, we have to keep in mind that this is a bias of sorts. We only remember the old school things that last if they are still around, which means you will only really remember those items that DID last. Therefore, you will be inclined to think that all your older items are still around, while in reality you are not thinking about all your older items that have crapped out and been disposed of years ago. I will say that higher quality materials used to be used in a lot of manufacturing in the past for consumer products. More metals and less plastics, more long-term performance in mind than short-term performance. Manufacturing standards used to be high because that was a major industry and economic factor for many countries, U.S. included. Now we are primarily an import economy and look for cheaper manufacturing, which means cheaper-built products. So, bottom line, there's truth to both sides of the argument. Tech is continuously improving, manufacturing quality has not been improving due to a focus on cost reduction (for many items).

32. troutsy

Posts: 381; Member since: Feb 17, 2012

Shh, you're ruining the delusion that they have created for themselves.

49. Slammer

Posts: 1515; Member since: Jun 03, 2010

---"Please disconnect your cable modem from the internet before you consider posting anything, as you are not capable of thinking."--- Maybe it's best I stay connected for those that totally misinterpret my posts as you did. It had nothing to do with how well built vehicles are today vs yesterday. My point is that manufacturers of products are designing these products to work with what they have given to them. As a 53 year old, I can assure you that I know a thing or two. The oil companies do not want their profit margin sacrificed and neither do the battery companies. The auto manufacturers have to engineer their engines to do as much as possible with a certain gas mileage. My uncle was employed at AC Delco and worked in the electric motor division and his friend worked in the carburetor division. In the late 50s early 60s, there were blueprints in developing a carburetor to meet or exceed 150mpg. It would never happen. The battery industry is no different. What has happened, as I explained in the beginning of this post, is the manufacturers of devices have been exceedingly engneering thier products to work with current battery technology. It has nothing to do with things "falling apart" or being "better built." We know things are engineered better. But, It has to do with better engineering to adapt to decades old power sources be it gas or battery; not frame or construction. Please ascend to my logic before making an assumption by way of insult. John B.

53. medtxa

Posts: 1655; Member since: Jun 02, 2014

well, this battery tech could be easier to apply, smartphone technology innovation now is moving faster, this mean manufactur should adapt their way so they can ditch old technology easily for better new technology without losing much of investment.

51. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

If you seriously think everything is made to last today as it was back then, I just don't know what to say. Electronics are a prime example, components especially. We we installing swirches in a graphic panel at a detention facility, and about 2-3 years after installation they failed. My boss just shook his head, because one of his first jobs he'd done (in 1978) he installed a panel similar to what we'd done. The switches he installed were still in their and still running, which at that time was 22 years old. So 3 years vs 22? Can't really call that close.

13. Captain_Doug

Posts: 1037; Member since: Feb 10, 2012

It doesn't mention anything about increased capacity. Why get a longer lasting battery(lifespan) if it still can't last a day? Not very useful tech for smartphones. The 70% charge thing is cool I guess but that's no so high on my priority list.

46. medtxa

Posts: 1655; Member since: Jun 02, 2014

read again "0-70 full in two minutes" meaning almost non existent charge time, I don't know how can this fact slip from your mind

71. Captain_Doug

Posts: 1037; Member since: Feb 10, 2012

.. I mentioned the 70% charge thing, can you not read? Who cares if I can charge my phone quickly if that still means carrying a charger or battery pack everywhere I go.

14. Slammer

Posts: 1515; Member since: Jun 03, 2010

---"These longer-lasting batteries should find a home in smartphones and could make it easier for you to hold on to that handset that you've had for a couple of years, that you don't want to send back to the manufacturer for a new battery."--- This is the argument I've been trying to embed in people's heads. Why should we have to send these devices to the manufacturers? Why shouldn't we be able to change our own batteries? Just make them removable. Afterall, it is the weakest link in any phone regardless of price or brand. I also feel this new technology will mysteriously disappear. The battery industry is similar to the oil industry. Money is made by purchasing new batteries or gas. Getting far more life or mileage would restrict revenue. This isn't the first time we've heard about new battery technology to take over the world. Just like when carburetors were developed to obtain 160mpg for a standard automobile. How'd that work out for us? John B.

26. designerfx

Posts: 76; Member since: Mar 26, 2013

This is incorrect. We didn't simply try to make devices not have removable batteries. It's more that we pressured manufacturers to make thinner and thinner phones. At some point that requires keeping the battery flush on the inside. You'll notice samsung phones with removable batteries have thicker cases.

33. Penny

Posts: 1844; Member since: Feb 04, 2011

The point you made does not invalidate Slammer's comment in the slightest. All you're stating is that removable batteries are not a priority, all Slammer's suggesting is that it should be a priority.

47. medtxa

Posts: 1655; Member since: Jun 02, 2014

wrong! phone with non removable battery on market tend to be thicker see htc m8, moto x, moto g, one plus one, and iphone 6 vs galaxy alpha with the same battery capacity.

62. Slammer

Posts: 1515; Member since: Jun 03, 2010

I have reservations about the stories revolving around the thinner and lighter devices. The difference in comparisons is minimal at best and in some cases the opposite. We as consumers are giving up our control in maintaining a level of simple repairs by letting the manufacturers forcing us to bow to service centers for something as simple as a battery replacement. The basic design and inner components of the common rechargeable battery haven't changed in about 30 years. The materials to make them more resistant to constant charging have to a certain extent. But, the offest is that modern technology for devices is always adapting to the weakest link; the battery. You are not doing a service to consumers by coddling the hyperbole that the industry is trying to feed to us. Someone that has been around technology most of my life, can see through this marketing. Batteries are a common failed element in all forms of the industry. Sealing them inside a device as powerful as today's computational products, is an insult to those that take technology seriously. I will ask this again: Why are some people like yourself, so inept in replacing your own power source that you need to pay someone to do it for you? John B.

17. TBomb

Posts: 1260; Member since: Dec 28, 2012

it also doesn't say how long the batteries will last and if they are big conductors of heat, etc. interesting though.

20. Dee79

Posts: 307; Member since: Jun 19, 2014

Why cant phone companys have solar built in phones

22. darkskoliro

Posts: 1092; Member since: May 07, 2012

Solar would be unfeasible. The components required to make a solar charging unit in itself would take up too much space for a smartphone to be usable. In addition to that, solar is only effective when it has a large number of time being spent absorbing the energy, since there is no way to have 100% efficiency when translating that into power.

36. KillgoreTroutTime

Posts: 433; Member since: Jan 06, 2014

educate yourself on solar....

27. alumoyo

Posts: 391; Member since: Aug 26, 2013

For as long as I've been reading these mobile phone sites (since 2006), I've always seen these new magical battery technologies being promised. Two or three incredible ones get reported each year - some charge super fast, some are super slim, some are super light, some carry massive power: but until now NONE OF THEM have made it into production. WHATS GOING ON!?

42. pegasso

Posts: 285; Member since: Nov 27, 2011

their main ingredient, the blood of unicorn, is rare and very hard to find.

64. KillgoreTroutTime

Posts: 433; Member since: Jan 06, 2014

Mostly they are just impossible to mass produce without having a huge fail rate.

34. hellonerds

Posts: 334; Member since: Aug 27, 2013

Nice.. be cool to have it in cars

37. MEeee

Posts: 403; Member since: Oct 19, 2011

I hope Apple doesn't file patent for this like they did with the fuel cell battery patent.

38. surethom

Posts: 1632; Member since: Mar 04, 2009

Imagine is the correct word, another battery tech that will be here in a few years, that just be the 12 "New" battery tech coming soon in the last 4 years & STILL not one has come to market. Wake me up when 1comes to market.

39. gigaraga

Posts: 1454; Member since: Mar 29, 2013

It'll probably won't come anytime soon. There are always new about this 'fast' charge and what not but yet to see it. (And sending phones back to the manufacturer to replace the battery is noob, that's what replaceable batteries are for.)

40. ManusImperceptus

Posts: 724; Member since: Jun 10, 2014

If it lasts for twenty years, the two minute charging time is kinda pointless, no?

48. medtxa

Posts: 1655; Member since: Jun 02, 2014

2 minutes charging is pointless?? huh

68. ManusImperceptus

Posts: 724; Member since: Jun 10, 2014

Uh, yes - if 1 charge lasts for twenty YEARS I wouldn't really care if it took 2 minutes, 2 hours or even 2 days...

69. ManusImperceptus

Posts: 724; Member since: Jun 10, 2014

Oh, misread the article... Anyway, who cares about a battery cell lasting 20 years if the device only lasts 2?
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit for samples and additional information.