4.6 Article

Transparent Conductive Oxide Materials for Bifacial Heterojunction Back Contact Solar Cells

Journal

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTRON DEVICES
Volume 69, Issue 7, Pages 3748-3752

Publisher

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TED.2022.3175799

Keywords

Metals; Indium tin oxide; Photovoltaic cells; Optical variables control; Optical refraction; Conductivity; Power system measurements; Device simulation; heterojunction; solar cell; transparent conductive oxide (TCO)

Funding

  1. VLSI Design and Education Center (VDEC)
  2. University of Tokyo
  3. Synopsys, Inc.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The performance of different transparent conductive oxide (TCO) materials in heterojunction back contact + (HBC+) solar cells was assessed. Among the TCO materials evaluated, the HBC+ cell with TiO2 showed the best performance under bifacial illumination conditions.
We assessed the performance of transparent conductive oxide (TCO) materials for use in the heterojunction back contact + (HBC+) solar cell. In addition to indium tin oxide (ITO), titanium dioxide (TiO2) and zinc oxide (ZnO) were evaluated as possible materials for the rear side of HBC+ solar cells. The results showed that the different optical and electrical parameters of the TCO materials affect the cell performance differently. Of the TCO materials that were assessed, the HBC+ cell with TiO2 delivered the best performance by increasing the power density by approximately 0.5 mW/cm(2) (relative to our previous evaluation) under bifacial illumination conditions. The optical properties of the TCO materials were revealed to have the greatest effect on the cell performance, particularly on the rear-side performance. The optimal size of the rear metal area is affected by the properties of the TCO material, mainly by the resistive components, and an increase in the temperature does not affect the selection of the best TCO material.

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