2014
DOI: 10.1088/0022-3727/47/48/485104
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Optimizing Ga-profiles for highly efficient Cu(In, Ga)Se2thin film solar cells in simple and complex defect models

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
68
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 92 publications
(72 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
4
68
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, we note that there is a difference of 89 mV between both devices in V OC . Therefore, it can be concluded that the effect of introducing the point contact layer increases device performance by somewhat increasing the rear reflection but also significantly by the effect of its electronic passivation role, in agreement with our previous studies [20,89] and contrary to other data interpretation from the literature. Using the well-known equation that relates V OC with FF [72,73] www.advmatinterfaces.de the temperature, and q the electron charge, and considering the ideality values, A, of 0.92 and 1.13 for the reference and the passivated cell, respectively, it is possible to estimate that the passivated device should have a FF value around 3% higher than the passivated solar cell due to its higher V OC value.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…However, we note that there is a difference of 89 mV between both devices in V OC . Therefore, it can be concluded that the effect of introducing the point contact layer increases device performance by somewhat increasing the rear reflection but also significantly by the effect of its electronic passivation role, in agreement with our previous studies [20,89] and contrary to other data interpretation from the literature. Using the well-known equation that relates V OC with FF [72,73] www.advmatinterfaces.de the temperature, and q the electron charge, and considering the ideality values, A, of 0.92 and 1.13 for the reference and the passivated cell, respectively, it is possible to estimate that the passivated device should have a FF value around 3% higher than the passivated solar cell due to its higher V OC value.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…Here, ф m is the work‐function of metal aluminium with an average of 4.17 eV . E g is the bandgap of CIGS (1.15 eV), and χ is electron affinity which was taken to be in the range of 3.9–4.5 eV . ф fp was calculated for an acceptor concentration of N a = 5 × 10 15 cm −3 and intrinsic carrier concentration ( n i ) of 7 × 10 8 cm −3 .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…ф fp was calculated for an acceptor concentration of N a = 5 × 10 15 cm −3 and intrinsic carrier concentration ( n i ) of 7 × 10 8 cm −3 . n i was calculated from conduction‐band density of states (N C = 7 × 10 17 cm −3 ) and valence‐band density of states (N V = 1.5 × 10 19 cm −3 ) and k being the Boltzmann constant …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The defect density of the CIGS layer as a function of Ga composition was also applied to the simulation. We referred to model B of the results of Frisk et al [14]. We used a linear DGB structure of the CIGS layer with a ZnS buffer as [4][5][6], where the minimum bandgap of 1.1 eV is located at a depth of 0.25 μm in the CIGS from the interface of the ZnS buffer, and the maximum bandgap is 1.5 eV at a depth of 1.8 μm contacting the Mo layer as shown in Figure 1 …”
Section: Experiments and Simulationsmentioning
confidence: 99%