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.
Potential of submicrometer thickness solar cells
Rent this article for
View: Figures


Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

Solar-cell performance parameters calculated at baseline conditions (no grading) for thicknesses of . The dashed and dashed-dotted lines assume that the carrier lifetime varies with thickness. The symbols show experimental results (Refs. 2–4).

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

Solar-cell performance parameters of uniform band-gap absorber for thicknesses of , 0.5, and . Recombination at the interface, which can lead to a limitation of the open-circuit voltage (Ref. 18), is neglected.

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

parameters with varying thicknesses and absorber carrier concentrations. Thin devices tend to be fully depleted and their performance is independent of . From top left to bottom right: , FF (%), and (%).

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

parameters with varying thicknesses and minority carrier lifetimes. From top left to bottom right: , FF (%), and (%).

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

parameters with varying back-contact barrier. The performance of thick devices is independent of the back-barrier height. From top left to bottom right: , FF (%), and (%).

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

Three scenarios are considered for grading (Ga incorporation): (a) electron reflector, which reduces the back-contact recombination velocity; (b) half graded, which assumes that the incorporated Ga is somewhat diffused throughout half of the thickness; and (c) full graded, the Ga is diffused throughout the absorber.

Image of FIG. 7.
FIG. 7.

Performance comparison of Fig. 6 grading profiles to ungraded absorber. Back optical reflection and .

Image of FIG. 8.
FIG. 8.

Comparison of changes in performance parameters between abrupt (“electron reflector”) and diffused (“full graded”) Ga profile. The latter is less beneficial than a simple electron reflector. From top to bottom: (V), and (%).

Image of FIG. 9.
FIG. 9.

Short-circuit current and efficiency vs absorber thickness (1.15 eV): At thickness the potential efficiency gain is 0.7%.

Image of FIG. 10.
FIG. 10.

Variation of parameters due to fluctuations in material parameters: (a) thickness: (b) back contact: at ; (c) grading A: at ; and (d) grading B: at .


Article metrics loading...


Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Potential of submicrometer thickness Cu(In,Ga)Se2 solar cells