Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T19:39:06.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Impact of Nonuniformities on Thin Cu(In,Ga)Se2 Solar Cell Performance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

Ana Kanevce
Affiliation:
[email protected], Colorado State University, Physics, Physics Department, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, 80523, United States, (970) 491-6072, (970) 491-7947
James R. Sites
Affiliation:
[email protected], Colorado State University, Physics Department, Fort Collins, CO, 80523, United States
Get access

Abstract

Solar-cell performance degradation due to physical nonuniformities becomes more significant as the thickness of polycrystalline absorbers is reduced. “Voltage” nonuniformities such as those due to band-gap fluctuations, variations in the back-contact proximity, and areas where the absorber is completely depleted can have very significant impact on cell performance. Similarly local shunts can seriously degrade the efficiency. “Current” nonuniformities such as optical defects have generally much less impact. The analysis presented is based on Cu(In,Ga)Se2 cells, but the qualitative results should be applicable to thin-absorber devices in general. For lateral nonuniformity studies, the solar cell is simulated by a two dimensional network of parallel diodes separated by resistors. The nonuniformities are approximated by small regions of reduced photovoltage, often referred to as “weak diodes”, and by isolated shunt resistors. The weak-diode approach allows investigation of device performance as a function of the weak-diode voltage deficit, the ratio of weak-to strong-diode area, and the weak diodes' spatial distribution. Increased TCO resistance can isolate weak diodes, thus limiting the voltage loss due to nonuniformities, but increasing fill-factor losses.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Contreras, M. A., Ramanathan, K., AbuShama, J., Hasoon, F., Young, D. L., Egaas, B. and Noufi, R., Prog. Photovoltaics 13, 209 (2005).Google Scholar
2. Bhattacharya, R. N., Contreras, M. A., Egaas, B., Noufi, R. N., Kanevce, A. and Sites, J. R., Appl. Phys. Lett. 89, 253503 (2006).Google Scholar
3. Negami, T., Nishiwaki, S., Hashimoto, Y., Kohara, N. and Wada, T., in Proc. 2 nd WCPEC, (1998) pp. 1181 Google Scholar
4. Lundberg, O., Bodegard, M., Malmstrom, J. and Stolt, L., Prog. Photovoltaics 11, 77 (2003).Google Scholar
5. Ramanathan, K., Noufi, R., To, B., Young, D.L., Bhattacharya, R., Contreras, M. A., Dhere, R.G. and Teeter, G., in Proc. 4th WCPEC, (2006) pp. 380 Google Scholar
6. Gloeckler, M. and Sites, J. R., J. Appl. Phys. 98, 103703 (2005).Google Scholar
7. Karpov, V. G., Compaan, A. D. and Shvydka, D., Phys. Rev. B 69, 045325 (2004).Google Scholar
8. Grabitz, P. O., Rau, U. and Werner, J. H., Phys. Status. Solidi A 202, 2920 (2005).Google Scholar
9. Grabitz, P. O., Rau, U. and Werner, J. H., Thin Solid Films 487, 14 (2005).Google Scholar
10. Werner, J. H., Mattheis, J. and Rau, U., Thin Solid Films 480, 399 (2005).Google Scholar
11. Rau, U., Grabitz, P. O. and Werner, J. H., Appl. Phys. Lett. 85, 6010 (2004).Google Scholar
12. Karpov, V.G., Compaan, A. D. and Shvydka, D., in Proc. 29thIEEE PVSC, (2002) pp. 708 Google Scholar
13. Karpov, V.G., Harju, R. and Dorer, G., in Proc. 28th IEEE PVSC, (2000) pp. 547 Google Scholar
14. Karpov, V. G., Compaan, A. D. and Shvydka, D., Appl. Phys. Lett. 80, 4256 (2002).Google Scholar
15. Eisgruber, I. L., PhD. Thesis, Colorado State University (1996)Google Scholar
16. Green, M. A.: Solar cells, Prentice-Hall, (1982), p. 80.Google Scholar