4.5 Article

Contact Resistivity of the p-Type Amorphous Silicon Hole Contact in Silicon Heterojunction Solar Cells

Journal

IEEE JOURNAL OF PHOTOVOLTAICS
Volume 10, Issue 1, Pages 54-62

Publisher

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/JPHOTOV.2019.2949430

Keywords

Amorphous silicon; carrier-selective contact; contact resistivity; passivating contact; silicon heterojunction (SHJ); solar cell

Funding

  1. Engineering Research Center Program of the National Science Foundation
  2. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy of the Department of Energy under NSF [EEC-1041895]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In silicon heterojunction solar cells made with high-lifetime wafers, resistive losses in the contacts dominate the total electrical power loss. Moreover, it is widely believed that the hole contact stack-a-Si:H(i)/a-Si:H(p)/ITO/Ag-is responsible for more of this power loss than the electron contact stack. In this article, we vary the a-Si:H(i) layer thickness, the a-Si:H(p) layer thickness and doping, and the indium tin oxide (ITO) doping, and determine the effect of each variation on the contact resistivity of the hole contact stack. In addition, we make complete solar cells with the same variations and correlate their series resistivity to the hole contact resistivity. We find that the contact resistivity is most sensitive to the thickness of the a-Si:H(i) layer and the oxygen partial pressure during ITO sputtering. Increasing the former from 4 to 16 nm results in a fourfold increase in contact resistivity, whereas increasing the latter from 0.14 to 0.85 mTorr raises the contact resistivity almost 30-fold. Optimized conditions produce a contact resistivity of 0.10 Omega cm(2), while maintaining an implied open-circuit voltage of 720 mV measured on cell precursors, which is the lowest contact resistivity value reported in the literature for an a-Si:H hole contact.

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