1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Solar conversion efficiency of photovoltaic and photoelectrolysis cells with carrier multiplication absorbers
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1063/1.2356795
/content/aip/journal/jap/100/7/10.1063/1.2356795
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aip/journal/jap/100/7/10.1063/1.2356795

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

(Color online) (a) Energy level scheme for a PV cell based on two nanocrystalline photosystems sensitized with chromophores, C1 and C2. C1 is a SF absorber that produces two excitons per photon, while C2 is an M1 absorber. In this bilayer configuration the top and bottom cells are in parallel electrically. (b) A series connected tandem cell configuration for photolytic splitting to produce hydrogen fuel. The conducting medium allows for electron-hole recombination. C1 is a SF absorber, while C2 is an M2 absorber.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

(Color online) Quantum yield models used for the following absorber types: MEG absorber with multiplications , 2, and [Eq. (4)], a single fission absorber [Eq. (5)], and a linear QY absorber with and slope [Eq. (6)].

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

(Color online) Quantum yield for the top and bottom cell of a tandem converter with M2 absorbers superimposed with the AM1.5G terrestrial solar spectrum. The range of photon energies able to generate two electron-hole pairs in the bottom cell is limited by absorption in the top cell. If , then MEG does not occur in the bottom cell.

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

(Color online) PV conversion efficiency for single gap devices with the following absorber types: MEG absorber with multiplications , , and , and a linear QY absorber with and slope (L3) and and slope (L2). The L3 curve represents the maximum theoretical efficiency that could be obtained assuming a quantum yield similar to that measured experimentally in PbSe quantum dots (Ref. 30).

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

(Color online) Maximum PV conversion efficiency vs band gap of the bottom cell for two gap series connected tandem devices with the following absorber combinations: (a) SF absorber in the top cell, (b) MEG absorber with M2 in the top cell, and (c) absorber with no multiplication M1 in the top cell. The red, blue, and green curves correspond to absorbers with SF, M2, and M1 QYs in the bottom cell. The top cell gap was chosen to give maximum efficiency at the given value of .

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

Conversion efficiency vs band gap for a single gap water splitting device with M1 and M2 absorbers for different values of ranging from in increments of . represents the sum of the cathodic and anodic overpotentials. For the ideal case of , a minimum band gap of is required for splitting water. The maximum efficiency for devices with an M2 absorber, 32.0%, is slightly higher than for an M1 absorber, 30.6%. Also shown for comparison is the single gap PV efficiency.

Image of FIG. 7.
FIG. 7.

Maximum water splitting conversion efficiency vs band gap of the bottom cell for a two gap series connected tandem device with M1 top and bottom absorbers (a) and the corresponding value of the top cell band gap (b). Efficiency and curves are shown for three values of overpotential , 0.4, and .

Image of FIG. 8.
FIG. 8.

Maximum water splitting conversion efficiency vs band gap of the bottom cell for a two gap series connected tandem device with a SF top and an M1 bottom cell absorber (a) and the corresponding value of the top cell band gap (b). Efficiency and curves are shown for three values of overpotential , 0.4, and .

Image of FIG. 9.
FIG. 9.

Maximum water splitting conversion efficiency vs band gap of the bottom cell for a two gap series connected tandem device with a SF top and an M2 bottom cell absorber (a) and the corresponding value of the top cell band gap (b). Efficiency and curves are shown for three values of overpotential , 0.4, and .

Image of FIG. 10.
FIG. 10.

(Color online) PEC device efficiencies as a function of the overpotential . Above , CM absorbers do not improve the efficiency over PEC devices without CM.

Tables

Generic image for table
Table I.

Maximum AM1.5G theoretical efficiency for SF, M2, and M1 PV tandem cell combinations at the optimum top and bottom cell band gaps.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aip/journal/jap/100/7/10.1063/1.2356795
2006-10-12
2014-04-20
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Solar conversion efficiency of photovoltaic and photoelectrolysis cells with carrier multiplication absorbers
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aip/journal/jap/100/7/10.1063/1.2356795
10.1063/1.2356795
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM