4.6 Article

High-performance ultrathin Cu(In,Ga)Se2 solar cell optimized by silvaco tools

Journal

SOLAR ENERGY
Volume 228, Issue -, Pages 282-289

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.solener.2021.09.072

Keywords

Ultrathin CIGS; Rear-passivation; Recombination; Pitch; Absorber

Categories

Funding

  1. Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences (KFAS) [PN20-35EE-03]
  2. Semiconductor Laboratory, Kuwait University [GE01/08]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The research investigated the impact of various factors on ultrathin CIGS solar cell performance, finding that using thin film Al2O3 for rear-passivation can significantly improve cell performance by reducing rear side contact recombination losses. However, poor passivation was observed with high density of positive charge or high contact resistance at the interface. The optimal combination led to achieving the best cell performance.
In this work, we investigated the influence of the cell pitch, opening width, Ga/(In + Ga) ratio, absorber layer thickness, and doping on ultrathin CIGS solar cell performance by using ATLAS tools. First, to validate our investigated solar cell, we discuss and compare our simulation models with fabricated cells with/without rear-passivation Al2O3/Cu(In1-xGax)Se-2. We observed significant improvements in cell performance while using a thin film Al2O3 for the rear-passivation with a high density of negative charge, where the rear side contact recombination losses can then be reduced. The simulation results follow the experimental trends, highlighting the beneficial effects of rear-passivation in the ultrathin absorber layer. However, poor passivation was observed when a rear-passivation layer is with a high density of positive charge or in high contact resistance at Ag/CIGS interface. Consequently, the optimum combination led to achieving 14.30% with 10(16) cm(-3), 2.5 mu m, and 250 nm for absorber doping, cell pitch, and cell width, respectively. The obtained results from the simulated cells were compared to the recently published research work.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available