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.
Impact of front and rear texture of thin-film microcrystalline silicon solar cells on their light trapping properties
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1063/1.3467968
/content/aip/journal/jap/108/4/10.1063/1.3467968
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aip/journal/jap/108/4/10.1063/1.3467968

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

Schematic cross-sections of and solar cells fabricated in this study.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

(a) Total and diffuse transmissivity spectra of flat , Asahi-U, and textured ZnO on glass. (b) Total and diffuse reflectivity spectra of flat glass, Asahi-U, and textured ZnO substrates covered with Ag and 40-nm-thick ZnO:Ga layers. of the flat and Asahi-U substrates were measured without a protective ZnO layer. This coating reduces roughly at 0.5% in the range of 450–1200 nm.

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

Cross-sectional SEM images of solar cells grown on (a) and (b) flat, (c) and (d) Asahi-U, and (e) and (f) textured ZnO substrates. The samples in (a), (c), and (e) have flat front surfaces obtained by CMP.

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

Surface roughness and solar cell parameters of and cells (samples A–L): rms roughness of front and rear surfaces, , , , , and . The arrows indicate cells with flat surfaces obtained by CMP.

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

J–V curves of solar cells with and without polishing (samples I–L).

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

(a) Abs and (b) EQE of solar cells grown on flat and moderately textured substrates with and without rear surface polishing.

Image of FIG. 7.
FIG. 7.

, , and in NIR region for solar cells grown on three different substrates with and without rear surface polishing.

Image of FIG. 8.
FIG. 8.

(a) Abs and (b) EQE of solar cells grown on flat and moderately textured substrates with and without front surface polishing.

Image of FIG. 9.
FIG. 9.

, , and in NIR region for solar cells grown on three different substrates with and without front surface polishing.

Image of FIG. 10.
FIG. 10.

in NIR region for and cells.

Image of FIG. 11.
FIG. 11.

Difference in EQEs of cells with thin and thick ITO layers used as front TCO layer. Here, we define .

Image of FIG. 12.
FIG. 12.

(a) Absorption coefficients of and ZnO:Ga with carrier density of and carrier mobility of (Ref. 36) and (b) absorption spectra at BSRs in and solar cells.

Image of FIG. 13.
FIG. 13.

of the (samples D and F) and (samples J and L) solar cells plotted as a function of wavelength. The lines show the expected contributions from the front TCO layer (, dotted line) and BSR (, dashed line) and their sum (, solid line). Here, the fitting parameters and are equal to and , respectively.

Tables

Generic image for table
Table I.

Solar cell samples fabricated in this study.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aip/journal/jap/108/4/10.1063/1.3467968
2010-08-20
2014-04-19
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Impact of front and rear texture of thin-film microcrystalline silicon solar cells on their light trapping properties
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aip/journal/jap/108/4/10.1063/1.3467968
10.1063/1.3467968
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM