4.5 Article

Ion Implantation for Poly-Si Passivated Back-Junction Back-Contacted Solar Cells

Journal

IEEE JOURNAL OF PHOTOVOLTAICS
Volume 5, Issue 2, Pages 507-514

Publisher

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/JPHOTOV.2014.2382975

Keywords

Back contact solar cells; carrier selective contacts; ion implantation; photovoltaic cells; solar energy

Funding

  1. German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy [0325478]
  2. State of Lower Saxony

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We study ion implantation for patterned doping of back-junction back-contacted solar cells with polycrystalline-monocrystalline Si junctions. In particular, we investigate the concept of counterdoping, that is, a process of first implanting a blanket emitter and afterward locally overcompensating the emitter by applying masked ion implantation for the back surface field (BSF) species. On planar test structures with blanket implants, we measure saturation current densities J(0,poly) of down to 1.0 +/- 1.1 fA/cm(2) for wafers passivated with phosphorus-implanted poly-Si layers and 4.4 +/- 1.1 fA/cm(2) for wafers passivated with boron-implanted poly-Si layers. The corresponding implied pseudofill factors pF F-im pl. are 87.3% and 84.6%, respectively. Test structures fabricated with the counterdoping process applied on a full area also exhibit excellent recombination behavior (J(0, poly) = 0.9 +/- 1.1 fA/cm(2), pF F-im pl. = 84.7%). By contrast, the samples with patterned counterdoped regions exhibit a far worse recombination behavior dominated by a recombination mechanism with an ideality factorn > 1. A comparison with the blanket-implanted test structures points to recombination in the space charge region inside the highly defective poly-Si layer. Consequently, we suggest introducing an undoped region between emitter and BSF in order to avoid the formation of p(+)/n(+) junctions in poly-Si.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available