Simulation study reveals power conversion efficiencies reaching 19.44% in all-organic and 21.13% in hybrid organic-silicon tandem cells, indicating key performance and manufacturing trade-offs.
The increasing demand for high-efficiency photovoltaic technologies has intensified research into tandem solar cells (TSCs) as a promising strategy to surpass the performance limits of single-junction devices. In this study, a comprehensive optoelectronic simulation using a Silvaco ATLAS TCAD simulator is employed to design, optimize, and compare two tandem architectures: all-organic and hybrid organic/silicon TSCs. The all-organic configuration consists of polymer donors comprising a PBDB-T:F-M top sub-cell stacked with a PTB7-Th:COi8DFIC:PC71BM bottom sub-cell, while the hybrid configuration integrates a PBDB-T:F-M organic top cell with a crystalline Si bottom cell. Calibrated device models, validated against experimental data of the individual sub-cells, are used to evaluate tandem performance and guide systematic optimization. The two tandem architectures employ the same PBDB-T:F-M wide-bandgap organic top absorber (Eg~1.60 eV), while the rear sub-cell consists of either the PTB7-Th:COi8DFIC:PC71BM organic absorber (Eg~1.20 eV) or crystalline silicon (Eg~1.12 eV). The initial organic/organic tandem device accomplishes a power conversion efficiency (PCE) of 15.70% and JSC of 10.96 mA/cm2, whereas the organic/silicon tandem structure exhibits a higher initial PCE of 16.85% and JSC of 12.26 mA/cm2. Following absorber-thickness optimization, the all-organic and hybrid OSC/Si tandems achieve PCEs of 19.44% and 21.13%, respectively. Rather than constituting a simple efficiency ranking, the comparison reveals distinct optical, electrical, and technological trade-offs. The hybrid architecture benefits from the broader spectral utilization and efficient carrier collection of thin crystalline Si, whereas the all-organic configuration offers advantages associated with low-temperature solution processing, reduced material consumption, and potentially fully solution-processed photovoltaic fabrication. The calibrated comparative framework therefore provides design guidance for selecting and optimizing TSCs according to both performance and application requirements.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fathy et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: