Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Many solar cells incorporating SiN x films as a rear surface passivation scheme have not reached the same high level of cell performance as solar cells incorporating high‐temperature‐grown silicon dioxide films as a rear surface passivation. In this paper, it is shown by direct comparison of solar cells incorporating the two rear surface passivation schemes, that the performance loss is mainly due to a lower short‐circuit current while the open‐circuit voltage is equally high. With a solar cell test structure that features a separation of the rear metal contacts from the passivating SiN x films, the loss in short‐circuit current can be reduced drastically. Besides a lower short‐ circuit current, dark I–V curves of SiN x rear surface passivated solar cells exhibit distinct shoulders. The results are explained by parasitic shunting of the induced floating junction (FJ) underneath the SiN x films with the rear metal contacts. The floating junction is caused by the high density of fixed positive charges in the SiN x films. Other two‐dimensional effects arising from the injection level dependent SRV of the Si/SiN x interfaces are discussed as well, but, are found to be of minor importance. Pinholes in the SiN x films and optical effects due to a different internal rear surface reflectance can be excluded as a major cause for the performance loss of the SiN x rear surface passivated cells.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dauwe et al. (2002) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: