4.7 Article

Electrical characterization and comparison of CIGS solar cells made with different structures and fabrication techniques

Journal

SOLAR ENERGY MATERIALS AND SOLAR CELLS
Volume 174, Issue -, Pages 77-83

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.solmat.2017.08.027

Keywords

Admittance spectroscopy; Cross-sectional electron-beam induced current (EBIC); Cu(In,Ga)Se-2 (GIGS); Deep-level transient spectroscopy (DLTS); Thin-film photovoltaics; Time-resolved photoluminescence (TRPL)

Funding

  1. U.S. Department of Energy [DE-AC36-08G028308]
  2. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In a previous paper [1], we reported on Cu(In,Ga)Se-2-based (CIGS) solar cell samples collected from different research laboratories and industrial companies with the purpose of understanding the range of CIGS materials that can lead to high-quality and high-efficiency solar panels. Here, we report on electrical measurements of those same samples. Electron-beam induced current and time-resolved photoluminescence (TRPL) gave insights about the collection probability and the lifetime of carriers generated in each absorber. Capacitance and drive level capacitance profiling revealed nonuniformity in carrier-density profiles. Admittance spectroscopy revealed small activation energies (<= 0.03 eV) indicative of the inversion strength, larger activation energies (> 0.1 eV) reflective of thermal activation of absorber conductivity and a deeper defect level. Deep-level transient spectroscopy (DLTS) probed deep hole-trapping defects and showed that all samples in this study had a majority carrier defect with activation energy between 0.3 eV and 0.9 eV. Optical-DLTS revealed deep electron-trapping defects in several of the CIGS samples. This work focused on revealing similarities and differences between high quality CIGS solar cells made with various structures and fabrication techniques.

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