Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T19:44:48.675Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

MoO3 back contact for CuInSe2-based thin film solar cells

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 August 2013

Hamed Simchi ,
Brian E. McCandless ,
T. Meng ,
Jonathan H. Boyle  and
William N. Shafarman
Hamed Simchi
Affiliation:
Institute of Energy Conversion, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, U.S.A. Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, U.S.A.
Brian E. McCandless
Affiliation:
Institute of Energy Conversion, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, U.S.A.
T. Meng
Affiliation:
Institute of Energy Conversion, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, U.S.A.
Jonathan H. Boyle
Affiliation:
Institute of Energy Conversion, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, U.S.A. Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, U.S.A.
William N. Shafarman
Affiliation:
Institute of Energy Conversion, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, U.S.A. Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, U.S.A.
Get access

Abstract

MoO3 films with a high work function (5.5 eV), high transparency, and a wide bandgap (3.0 - 3.4 eV) are a potential candidate for the primary back contact of Cu(InGa)Se2 thin film solar cells. This may be advantageous to form ohmic contact in superstrate devices where the back contact will be deposited after the Cu(InGa)Se2 layer and MoSe2 layer doesn’t form during Cu(InGa)Se2 deposition. In addition, the MoO3 may be incorporated in a transparent back contact in tandem or bifacial cells. In this study, MoO3 films for use as a back contact for Cu(In,Ga)Se2 thin film solar cells were prepared by reactive rf sputtering with O2/(O2+Ar) = 35%. The effect of post processing on the structural properties of the deposited films were investigated using x-ray diffraction and scanning electron microscopy. Annealing resulted in crystallization of the films to the α-MoO3 phases at 400°C. Increasing the oxygen partial pressure had no significant effect on optical transmittance of the films, and bandgaps in the range of 2.6-2.9 eV and 3.1-3.4 eV were obtained for the as deposited and annealed films, respectively. Cu(In,Ga)Se2 thin film solar cells prepared using an as-deposited Mo-MoO3 back contact yielded an efficiency of >14% with VOC = 647 (mV), JSC = 28.4 (mA), and FF. = 78.1%. Cells with ITO-MoO3 back contact showed an efficiency of ∼12% with VOC = 642 (mV), JSC = 26.8 (mA), and FF. = 69.2%. The efficiency of cells with an annealed MoO3 back contact was limited to 4%, showing a blocking diode behavior in the forward bias J-V curve. This may be caused by the presence of a barrier between the valence bands of the Cu(In,Ga)Se2 and MoO3, due to the higher bandgap of the annealed MoO3 films. SEM cross section studies showed uniform coverage of the as-deposited MoO3 layer and formation of voids for the annealed MoO3 film. Structural orientation of the Cu(In,Ga)Se2 absorber layer was also altered by the MoO3 film and less-oriented films were observed for either cases.

Keywords

oxidephotovoltaicthin film
Type
Articles
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1538: Symposium C – Compound Semiconductors: Thin-Film Photovoltaics, LEDs and Smart Energy Controls , 2013 , pp. 173 - 178
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Russell, P.E., Applied Physics Letters 40, 995 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohara, N., Nishiwaki, S., Hashimoto, Y., Negami, T., and Wada, T., Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells 67, 209 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheer, R. and Schock, H.-W., Chalcogenide Photovoltaics (Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim, Germany, 2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroder, D.K, Contact Resistance and Schottky Barriers (John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 2006), p. 128.Google Scholar
Oka, N., Watanabe, H., Sato, Y., Yamaguchi, H., Ito, N., Tsuji, H., and Shigesato, Y., Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology A: Vacuum, Surfaces, and Films 28, 886 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nirupama, V., Chandrasekhar, M., Radhika, P., Sreedhar, B., and Uthanna, S., Journal of Optoelectronics and Advanced materials 11, 320 (2009).Google Scholar
Fan, X., Fang, G., Qin, P., Sun, N., Liu, N., Zheng, Q., Cheng, F., Yuan, L., and Zhao, X., Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 44, 045101 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ICDD DDView 4.8.3.4 using PDF-2/Release 2008 RDB 2.0804, The International Center for Diffraction Data, Newton Square, card number 01-089-1554.Google Scholar
ICDD DDView 4.8.3.4 using PDF-2/Release 2008 RDB 2.0804, The International Center for Diffraction Data, Newton Square, card number 00-005-0508 (n.d.).Google Scholar
Smith, R.L. and Rohrer, G.S., Journal of Solid State Chemistry 124, 104 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simchi, H., McCandless, B.E., Meng, T., Boyle, J.H., and Shafarman, W.N., Characterization of sputter deposited MoO3 for solar cell application, Manuscript Under Preparation.Google Scholar
Wei, S.-H., Zhang, S.B., and Zunger, A., Journal of Applied Physics 85, 7214 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar