4.7 Article

Effect of silicon oxide thickness on polysilicon based passivated contacts for high-efficiency crystalline silicon solar cells

期刊

SOLAR ENERGY MATERIALS AND SOLAR CELLS
卷 185, 期 -, 页码 270-276

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.solmat.2018.05.011

关键词

Silicon solar cell; Passivated contact; Passivation; Silicon oxide; Contact resistivity; Metallization-induced degradation

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Energy [DE-AC36-08GO28308]
  2. U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Solar Energy Technologies Office [SETP DE-EE00030301]
  3. Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC
  4. Manager and Operator of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, we have investigated the effect of SiOx thickness (1-3 nm) on the performance of polycrystalline (poly) Si/SiOx/monocrystalline Si (c-Si) passivated contacts. Our results show that for both n-and p-type contacts, there is an optimum SiOx thickness of 1.4-1.6 nm for obtaining the highest implied open-circuit voltage (i1/03 values of similar to 739 and similar to 700 mV, respectively. For contacts with SiOx thicker than 1.6 nm, the i-V-oc drops due to reduced field-effect passivation. We attribute this to the fact that a thicker SiOx layer hinders the diffusion of both n-and p-type dopants into the c-Si wafer resulting in a junction that is very close to the c-Si/SiOx interface, which increases carrier recombination most likely due to the presence of defects at this interface. The resistivity measured through the metal/poly-Si/SiOx /c-Si stack is independent of SiOx thickness up to 1.6 nm, and increases exponentially by several orders of magnitude with further increase in SiOx thickness due to inefficient tunneling transport. Finally, the extent of metallization-induced degradation of the poly-Si/SiOx /c-Si contacts is worst for the thinnest SiOx investigated (similar to 1 nm), and interestingly it is not completely mitigated even for a similar to 3 nm thick SiO,.

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

4.7
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