4.7 Article

Low-Cost Strategy for High-Efficiency Bifacial Perovskite/c-Si Tandem Solar Cells

Journal

SOLAR RRL
Volume 6, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/solr.202100781

Keywords

albedo; bifacial solar cells; perovskite; c-Si; pyramid height; Si thickness; tandem solar cells

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [11834011]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Research has shown the photovoltaic performance of bifacial perovskite/c-Si tandem solar cells under different Si thicknesses, pyramid heights, and albedos. It was found that the thickness of the c-Si sub-cells can be reduced to 25μm, and the albedos need to be increased by 18.6% to cover the absorption loss in the near-infrared.
Many studies have confirmed that the perovskite/crystalline silicon (c-Si) tandem solar cells (TSCs) can achieve excellent photovoltaic performance far exceeding that of single-junction solar cells. However, the quite thick c-Si bottom-cells have to be used to fully absorb near-infrared photons, which greatly improves the cost of the TSCs. The bifacial two-terminal TSCs not only can improve the energy output by introducing rear incident light, but also significantly reduce the Si thickness while maintaining high efficiency. Herein, the photovoltaic performance of bifacial perovskite/c-Si TSCs under different Si thicknesses, pyramid heights, and albedos have been calculated. It is found that the thickness of the c-Si sub-cells can be reduced from the current 250 to 25 mu m, and only the albedos need to be increased by 18.6% to cover the absorption loss in the near-infrared. It is recommended that 100-mu m thick c-Si is a suitable candidate and optimized the size of the Si pyramids (1.0 mu m) to obtain excellent light trapping performance. This work can serve as a guidance for experimental preparation of low-cost and high-efficiency bifacial perovskite/c-Si TSCs.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available