4.2 Article

Ultrathin wide band gap kesterites

期刊

FARADAY DISCUSSIONS
卷 239, 期 -, 页码 38-50

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/d2fd00052k

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research [RMA15-0030]
  2. Swedish Research Council [2019-04793, 2020-04065]
  3. European Union [952982]
  4. Vinnova [2019-04793] Funding Source: Vinnova
  5. Swedish Research Council [2020-04065, 2019-04793] Funding Source: Swedish Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The performance of Kesterite Cu2ZnSnS4 (CZTS) ultrathin solar cells was studied, and it was found that reducing the thickness had a relatively small impact on performance. Insertion of thin passivation layers at the Mo/CZTS interface improved the performance.
Kesterite Cu2ZnSnS4 (CZTS), used for thin film solar cells, has a band gap energy around 1.5-1.6 eV with possibilities for further increase through alloying. In some applications for wide band gap solar cells, reduced absorber thickness can be beneficial, to allow partial light transmission. Reduced thickness can also be beneficial to reduce bulk recombination, and so called ultrathin solar cells (<700 nm thick) have been studied for several materials systems. Here, we report performance for CZTS devices down to 250 nm thickness and show that performance loss from thickness reduction is relatively small, partly due to short minority carrier diffusion length. Insertion of thin passivation layers (Al2O3, SiO2 or HfO2) at the Mo/CZTS interface gives improved performance of ultrathin devices, from 4.7% to 5.6% efficiency for best performing cells having 250 nm thick CZTS with Mo as compared to Mo/Al2O3 back contact. The approach of NaF post deposition for making isolating passivation layers conductive is tested for the first time for CZTS and is shown to work. For fabrication of CZTS devices on transparent ITO back contact, the insertion of passivation layers can reduce diffusion of indium into CZTS, but device performance is lower than on Mo back contacts.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据