Device characterization of (AgCu)(InGa)Se&lt;inf&gt;2&lt;/inf&gt; solar cells

Shafarman, William N.; Thompson, Christopher P.; Boyle, Jonathan; Hanket, Gregory M.; Erslev, Peter T.; Cohen, J. David

doi:10.1109/pvsc.2010.5615949

Cited by 29 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There is a voltage dependence in the short wavelength range, as the negative applied potential improves collection of the blue part of the spectrum in the backwall devices. We have shown previously [8] that Ag-alloying reduces the voltage-dependent collection of typical substrate devices, which is in contrast with our current results.…”

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…One approach is Ag-alloying of the absorber layer to form (Ag,Cu)(In,Ga)Se 2 (ACIGS). Alloying the absorber layer with Ag increases the bandgap and decreases the melting point of the alloy which may allow films to be deposited with lower defect density than other Cu(In,Ga)Se 2 alloys [8]. Evidence of this has been reported with improved device performance [9] and sharper band tails [10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Improved Performance of Ultrathin Cu(InGa)Se<inline-formula><tex-math>$_{\bf 2}$</tex-math> </inline-formula> Solar Cells With a Backwall Superstrate Configuration

Simchi

Larsen

Kim

et al. 2014

IEEE J. Photovoltaics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A backwall superstrate device structure that outperforms conventional substrate Cu(In,Ga)Se 2 devices for thin absorbers is described. The backwall structure of glass/ITO/MoO 3 /Cu(In,Ga)Se 2 /CdS/i-ZnO/Ag utilizes a MoO 3 transparent back contact to allow illumination of the device from the back. The device performance has been improved by modifying the Cu(In,Ga)Se 2 , including alloying with Ag to form (AgCu)(InGa)Se 2 absorber layers. In addition, sulfized back contacts including ITO-S and MoS 2 are compared. Interface properties are discussed based on the XPS analysis and thermodynamics of reactions.Index Terms-(AgCu)(InGa)Se 2 , backwall structure, solar cell, thin film, transparent back contact.

show abstract

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improved Performance of Ultrathin Cu(InGa)Se<inline-formula><tex-math>$_{\bf 2}$</tex-math> </inline-formula> Solar Cells With a Backwall Superstrate Configuration

Simchi

Larsen

Kim

et al. 2014

IEEE J. Photovoltaics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As a defect moves towards mid-gap, it becomes an increasingly effective recombination center, and the ideality factor, A, should move towards 2. Increasing the Ga/(In+Ga) content of a ACIGS or CIGS solar cell does cause A to tend towards 2, as the recombination center moves closer to mid-gap [13].…”

Section: Historical Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Bandgap gradients in (Ag,Cu)(In,Ga)Se2 thin film solar cells deposited by three-stage co-evaporation

Thompson

Chen

Shafarman

et al. 2015

2015 IEEE 42nd Photovoltaic Specialist Conference (PVSC)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ag,Cu)(In,Ga)Se 2 (ACIGS) solar cells are optimized at bandgaps greater than 1.2 eV by varying composition profile of the absorber layer using a three-stage evaporation process. Numerical modeling and cumulative process data provides insight into the process. Silver alloying CIGS changes the optimized bandgap profile by reducing carrier concentration, and reducing bandgap gradients. The minimum bandgap position is controlled by the point when the film reaches I/III stoichiometry during the second stage of the three-stage process. We achieved a 19.9% efficient solar cell with V OC = 732 mV at a bandgap of 1.2 eV based on quantum efficiency.

show abstract

“…A broad single‐phase region (no miscibility gap observed in thin films) and lower melting point allow for lower deposition temperatures as compared with CIGS, which is interesting for applications in tandem devices or on polyimide substrates . It is suggested that the latter feature leads to lower defect densities, reduces the amount of structural disorder, and improves the minority carrier diffusion length . In addition, significantly larger grains are observed, especially for higher Ga contents .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wide‐gap (Ag,Cu)(In,Ga)Se₂ solar cells with different buffer materials—A path to a better heterojunction

Keller

Sopiha

Stolt

et al. 2020

Progress in Photovoltaics

139

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This contribution concerns the effect of the Ag content in wide‐gap AgwCu1‐wIn1‐xGaxSe2 (ACIGS) absorber films and its impact on solar cell performance. First‐principles calculations are conducted, predicting trends in absorber band gap energy (Eg) and band structure across the entire compositional range (w and x). It is revealed that a detrimental negative conduction band offset (CBO) with a CdS buffer can be avoided for all possible absorber band gap values (Eg = 1.0–1.8 eV) by adjusting the Ag alloying level. This opens a new path to reduce interface recombination in wide‐gap chalcopyrite solar cells. Indeed, corresponding samples show a clear increase in open‐circuit voltage (VOC) if a positive CBO is created by sufficient Ag addition. A further extension of the beneficial compositional range (positive CBO at buffer/ACIGS interface) is possible when exchanging CdS with Zn1‐ySnyOz, because of its lower electron affinity (χ). Nevertheless, the experimental results strongly suggest that at present, residual interface recombination still limits the performance of solar cells with optimized CBO, which show an efficiency of up to 15.1% for an absorber band gap of Eg = 1.45 eV.

show abstract

Device characterization of (AgCu)(InGa)Se<inf>2</inf> solar cells

Cited by 29 publications

References 8 publications

Improved Performance of Ultrathin Cu(InGa)Se<inline-formula><tex-math>$_{\bf 2}$</tex-math> </inline-formula> Solar Cells With a Backwall Superstrate Configuration

Improved Performance of Ultrathin Cu(InGa)Se<inline-formula><tex-math>$_{\bf 2}$</tex-math> </inline-formula> Solar Cells With a Backwall Superstrate Configuration

Bandgap gradients in (Ag,Cu)(In,Ga)Se2 thin film solar cells deposited by three-stage co-evaporation

Wide‐gap (Ag,Cu)(In,Ga)Se₂ solar cells with different buffer materials—A path to a better heterojunction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Device characterization of (AgCu)(InGa)Se<inf>2</inf> solar cells

Cited by 29 publications

References 8 publications

Improved Performance of Ultrathin Cu(InGa)Se<inline-formula><tex-math>$_{\bf 2}$</tex-math> </inline-formula> Solar Cells With a Backwall Superstrate Configuration

Improved Performance of Ultrathin Cu(InGa)Se<inline-formula><tex-math>$_{\bf 2}$</tex-math> </inline-formula> Solar Cells With a Backwall Superstrate Configuration

Bandgap gradients in (Ag,Cu)(In,Ga)Se2 thin film solar cells deposited by three-stage co-evaporation

Wide‐gap (Ag,Cu)(In,Ga)Se2 solar cells with different buffer materials—A path to a better heterojunction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Wide‐gap (Ag,Cu)(In,Ga)Se₂ solar cells with different buffer materials—A path to a better heterojunction