Compares cadmium telluride and perovskite as top-layer materials in photovoltaic technologies, suggesting implications for sustainability.
This study provides a comprehensive comparative analysis of cadmium telluride (CdTe) and perovskite materials as a top-layer for next-generation tandem photovoltaic (PV) technologies, benchmarked against crystalline silicon (c-Si). The evaluation integrates three primary domains, scientific and engineering performance, economic feasibility, and ethical, legal and social implications (ELSI) to establish a multidimensional framework for sustainable material selection. Scientific and engineering assessment analyzed device efficiency, material stability, and degradation behavior. Economic viability was assessed using levelized cost of energy (LCOE) and price per watt (PPW). The ELSI evaluation focused on environmental toxicity, health risks and sourcing concerns such as the use of conflict-region materials. A qualitative assessment of each category was translated to a quantitative scale to enable direct comparison. Results indicate that CdTe exhibits higher stability and lower degradation, maintaining superior durability and manufacturing compared to perovskite. However, perovskites rapidly increasing efficiency, inexpensive raw materials, and declining production costs highlight its long-term promise. Despite CdTe’s strong scientific and ELSI performance, its reliance on tellurium limits scalability, white perovskites environmental challenges, particularly lead toxicity, require further technological innovation. Ongoing research into encapsulation and defect passivation may significantly improve perovskite’s stability and sustainability. Additional, integration of artificial intelligence and machine learning in material discovery can accelerate optimization across all domains. This study underscores the potential for both CdTe and perovskite to transform next-generation solar power systems by combining technical, economic and ethical perspectives. The findings serve as a framework for future research in sustainable PV development, bridging laboratory innovation with real-world energy transition strategies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ochoa et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: