Photovoltaics

The performance of a photovoltaic (PV) module depends on the environmental conditions, mainly on the global incident irradiance G in the plane of the module. However, the temperature T of the p–n junction also influences the main electrical parameters: the short circuit current ISC, the open circuit voltage VOC and the maximum power Pmax. In general, it is known that VOC shows a significant inverse correlation with T, while for ISC this correlation is direct, but weaker, so that this increase does not compensate for the decrease in VOC. As a consequence, Pmax decreases when T increases. This correlation between the power output of a solar cell and the working temperature of its junction depends on the semiconductor material, and is due to the influence of T on the concentration, lifetime, and mobility of the intrinsic carriers, i.e., electrons and gaps. inside the photovoltaic cell.

Temperature sensitivity is usually described by temperature coefficients, each of which expresses the derivative of the parameter to which it refers with respect to the junction temperature. The values of these parameters, which can be found in any data sheet of the photovoltaic module, are the following:

- β: VOC variation coefficient with respect to T, given by ∂VOC/∂T.

- α: Coefficient of variation of ISC with respect to T, given by ∂ISC/∂T.

- δ: Coefficient of variation of Pmax with respect to T, given by ∂Pmax/∂T.

Techniques for estimating these coefficients from experimental data can be found in the literature [40]

The ability of solar modules to withstand damage by rain, hail, heavy snow load, and cycles of heat and cold varies by manufacturer, although most solar panels on the U.S. market are UL listed, meaning they have gone through testing to withstand hail.[41]

Potential-induced degradation (also called PID) is a potential-induced performance degradation in crystalline photovoltaic modules, caused by so-called stray currents.[42] This effect may cause power loss of up to 30%.[43]

The largest challenge for photovoltaic technology is the purchase price per watt of electricity produced. Advancements in photovoltaic technologies have brought about the process of "doping" the silicon substrate to lower the activation energy thereby making the panel more efficient in converting photons to retrievable electrons.[44]

Chemicals such as boron (p-type) are applied into the semiconductor crystal in order to create donor and acceptor energy levels substantially closer to the valence and conductor bands.[45] In doing so, the addition of boron impurity allows the activation energy to decrease twenty-fold from 1.12 eV to 0.05 eV. Since the potential difference (E_B) is so low, the boron is able to thermally ionize at room temperatures. This allows for free energy carriers in the conduction and valence bands thereby allowing greater conversion of photons to electrons.

The power output of a photovoltaic (PV) device decreases over time. This decrease is due to its exposure to solar radiation as well as other external conditions. The degradation index, which is defined as the annual percentage of output power loss, is a key factor in determining the long-term production of a photovoltaic plant. To estimate this degradation, the percentage of decrease associated with each of the electrical parameters. The individual degradation of a photovoltaic module can significantly influence the performance of a complete string. Furthermore, not all modules in the same installation decrease their performance at exactly the same rate. Given a set of modules exposed to long-term outdoor conditions, the individual degradation of the main electrical parameters and the increase in their dispersion must be considered. As each module tends to degrade differently, the behavior of the modules will be increasingly different over time, negatively affecting the overall performance of the plant.

There are several studies dealing with the power degradation analysis of modules based on different photovoltaic technologies available in the literature. According to a recent study,[46] the degradation of crystalline silicon modules is very regular, oscillating between 0.8% and 1.0% per year.

On the other hand, if we analyze the performance of thin-film photovoltaic modules, an initial period of strong degradation is observed (which can last several months and up to two years), followed by a later stage in which the degradation stabilizes, being then comparable to that of crystalline silicon.[47] Strong seasonal variations are also observed in such thin-film technologies because the influence of the solar spectrum is much greater. For example, for modules of amorphous silicon, micromorphic silicon or cadmium telluride, we are talking about annual degradation rates for the first years of between 3% and 4%.[48] However, other technologies, such as CIGS, show much lower degradation rates, even in those early years.

Solar photovoltaic power is not entirely "clean energy": production produces greenhouse gas emissions, materials used to build the cells are potentially unsustainable and will run out eventually, the technology uses toxic substances which cause pollution, and there are no viable technologies for recycling solar waste.[51] Data required to investigate their impact are sometimes affected by a rather large amount of uncertainty. The values of human labor and water consumption, for example, are not precisely assessed due to the lack of systematic and accurate analyses in the scientific literature.[1] One difficulty in determining effects due to PV is to determine if the wastes are released to the air, water, or soil during the manufacturing phase.[52] Life-cycle assessments, which look at all different environment effects ranging from global warming potential, pollution, water depletion and others, are unavailable for PV. Instead, studies have tried to estimate the impact and potential impact of various types of PV, but these estimates are usually restricted to simply assessing energy costs of the manufacture and/or transport, because these are new technologies and the total environmental impact of their components and disposal methods are unknown, even for commercially available first generation solar cells, let alone experimental prototypes with no commercial viability.[53]

Thus, estimates of the environmental impact of PV have focused on carbon dioxide equivalents per kWh or energy pay-back time (EPBT). The EPBT describes the timespan a PV system needs to operate in order to generate the same amount of energy that was used for its manufacture.[54] Another study includes transport energy costs in the EPBT.[55] The EPBT has also been defined completely differently as "the time needed to compensate for the total renewable- and non-renewable primary energy required during the life cycle of a PV system" in another study, which also included installation costs.[56] This energy amortization, given in years, is also referred to as break-even energy payback time.[57] The lower the EPBT, the lower the environmental cost of solar power. The EPBT depends vastly on the location where the PV system is installed (e.g. the amount of sunlight available and the efficiency of the electrical grid)[55] and on the type of system, namely the system's components.[54]

A 2015 review of EPBT estimates of first and second-generation PV suggested that there was greater variation in embedded energy than in efficiency of the cells implying that it was mainly the embedded energy that needs to reduce to have a greater reduction in EPBT.[58]

In general, the most important component of solar panels, which accounts for much of the energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, is the refining of the polysilicon.[54] As to how much percentage of the EPBT this silicon depends on the type of system. A fully autarkic system requires additional components ('Balance of System', the power inverters, storage, etc.) which significantly increase the energy cost of manufacture, but in a simple rooftop system, some 90% of the energy cost is from silicon, with the remainder coming from the inverters and module frame.[54]

In an analysis by Alsema et al. from 1998, the energy payback time was higher than 10 years for the former system in 1997, while for a standard rooftop system the EPBT was calculated as between 3.5 and 8 years.[54][59]

The EPBT relates closely to the concepts of net energy gain (NEG) and energy returned on energy invested (EROI). They are both used in energy economics and refer to the difference between the energy expended to harvest an energy source and the amount of energy gained from that harvest. The NEG and EROI also take the operating lifetime of a PV system into account and a working life of 25 to 30 years is typically assumed. From these metrics, the Energy payback Time can be derived by calculation.[60][61]

PV systems using crystalline silicon, by far the majority of the systems in practical use, have such a high EPBT because silicon is produced by the reduction of high-grade quartz sand in electric furnaces. This coke-fired smelting process occurs at high temperatures of more than 1000 °C and is very energy intensive, using about 11 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per produced kilogram of silicon.[62] The energy requirements of this process makes the energy cost per unit of silicon produced relatively inelastic, which means that the production process itself will not become more efficient in the future.

Nonetheless, the energy payback time has shortened significantly over the last years, as crystalline silicon cells became ever more efficient in converting sunlight, while the thickness of the wafer material was constantly reduced and therefore required less silicon for its manufacture. Within the last ten years, the amount of silicon used for solar cells declined from 16 to 6 grams per watt-peak. In the same period, the thickness of a c-Si wafer was reduced from 300 μm, or microns, to about 160–190 μm. The sawing techniques that slice crystalline silicon ingots into wafers have also improved by reducing the kerf loss and making it easier to recycle the silicon sawdust.[63][64]

Crystalline silicon modules are the most extensively studied PV type in terms of LCA since they are the most commonly used. Mono-crystalline silicon photovoltaic systems (mono-si) have an average efficiency of 14.0%.[66] The cells tend to follow a structure of front electrode, anti-reflection film, n-layer, p-layer, and back electrode, with the sun hitting the front electrode. EPBT ranges from 1.7 to 2.7 years.[67] The cradle to gate of CO₂-eq/kWh ranges from 37.3 to 72.2 grams when installed in Southern Europe.[68]

Techniques to produce multi-crystalline silicon (multi-si) photovoltaic cells are simpler and cheaper than mono-si, however tend to make less efficient cells, an average of 13.2%.[66] EPBT ranges from 1.5 to 2.6 years.[67] The cradle to gate of CO₂-eq/kWh ranges from 28.5 to 69 grams when installed in Southern Europe.[68]

Assuming that the following countries had a high-quality grid infrastructure as in Europe, in 2020 it was calculated it would take 1.28 years in Ottawa, Canada, for a rooftop photovoltaic system to produce the same amount of energy as required to manufacture the silicon in the modules in it (excluding the silver, glass, mounts and other components), 0.97 years in Catania, Italy, and 0.4 years in Jaipur, India. Outside of Europe, where net grid efficiencies are lower, it would take longer. This 'energy payback time' can be seen as the portion of time during the useful lifetime of the module in which the energy production is polluting. At best, this means that a 30-year old panel has produced clean energy for 97% of its lifetime, or that the silicon in the modules in a solar panel produce 97% less greenhouse gas emissions than a coal-fired plant for the same amount of energy (assuming and ignoring many things).[55] Some studies have looked beyond EPBT and GWP to other environmental effects. In one such study, conventional energy mix in Greece was compared to multi-si PV and found a 95% overall reduction in effects including carcinogens, eco-toxicity, acidification, eutrophication, and eleven others.[69]

Cadmium telluride (CdTe) is one of the fastest-growing thin film based solar cells which are collectively known as second-generation devices. This new thin-film device also shares similar performance restrictions (Shockley-Queisser efficiency limit) as conventional Si devices but promises to lower the cost of each device by both reducing material and energy consumption during manufacturing. The global market share of CdTe was 4.7% in 2008.[52] This technology's highest power conversion efficiency is 21%.[70] The cell structure includes glass substrate (around 2 mm), transparent conductor layer, CdS buffer layer (50–150 nm), CdTe absorber and a metal contact layer.

CdTe PV systems require less energy input in their production than other commercial PV systems per unit electricity production. The average CO₂-eq/kWh is around 18 grams (cradle to gate). CdTe has the fastest EPBT of all commercial PV technologies, which varies between 0.3 and 1.2 years.[71]

Third-generation PVs are designed to combine the advantages of both the first and second generation devices and they do not have Shockley-Queisser limit, a theoretical limit for first and second generation PV cells. The thickness of a third generation device is less than 1 μm.[72]

Two new promising thin film technologies are copper zinc tin sulfide (Cu₂ZnSnS₄ or CZTS),[53] zinc phosphide (Zn₃P₂)[53] and single-walled carbon nano-tubes (SWCNT).[73] These thin films are currently only produced in the lab but may be commercialized in the future. The manufacturing of CZTS and (Zn₃P₂) processes are expected to be similar to those of current thin film technologies of CIGS and CdTe, respectively. While the absorber layer of SWCNT PV is expected to be synthesized with CoMoCAT method.[74] by Contrary to established thin films such as CIGS and CdTe, CZTS, Zn₃P₂, and SWCNT PVs are made from earth abundant, nontoxic materials and have the potential to produce more electricity annually than the current worldwide consumption.[75][76] While CZTS and Zn₃P₂ offer good promise for these reasons, the specific environmental implications of their commercial production are not yet known. Global warming potential of CZTS and Zn₃P₂ were found 38 and 30 grams CO₂-eq/kWh while their corresponding EPBT were found 1.85 and 0.78 years, respectively.[53] Overall, CdTe and Zn₃P₂ have similar environmental effects but can slightly outperform CIGS and CZTS.[53] A study on environmental impacts of SWCNT PVs by Celik et al., including an existing 1% efficient device and a theoretical 28% efficient device, found that, compared to monocrystalline Si, the environmental impacts from 1% SWCNT was ~18 times higher due mainly to the short lifetime of three years.[73]

Price per watt history for conventional (c-Si) solar cells since 1977

In 1977 crystalline silicon solar cell prices were at $76.67/W.[82]

Although wholesale module prices remained flat at around $3.50 to $4.00/W in the early 2000s due to high demand in Germany and Spain afforded by generous subsidies and shortage of polysilicon, demand crashed with the abrupt ending of Spanish subsidies after the market crash of 2008, and the price dropped rapidly to $2.00/W. Manufacturers were able to maintain a positive operating margin despite a 50% drop in income due to innovation and reductions in costs. In late 2011, factory-gate prices for crystalline-silicon photovoltaic modules suddenly dropped below the $1.00/W mark, taking many in the industry by surprise, and has caused a number of solar manufacturing companies to go bankrupt throughout the world. The $1.00/W cost is often regarded in the PV industry as marking the achievement of grid parity for PV, but most experts do not believe this price point is sustainable. Technological advancements, manufacturing process improvements, and industry re-structuring, may mean that further price reductions are possible.[2] The average retail price of solar cells as monitored by the Solarbuzz group fell from $3.50/watt to $2.43/watt over the course of 2011.[83] In 2013 wholesale prices had fallen to $0.74/W.[82] This has been cited as evidence supporting 'Swanson's law', an observation similar to the famous Moore's Law, which claims that solar cell prices fall 20% for every doubling of industry capacity.[82] The Fraunhofer Institute defines the 'learning rate' as the drop in prices as the cumulative production doubles, some 25% between 1980 and 2010. Although the prices for modules have dropped quickly, current inverter prices have dropped at a much lower rate, and in 2019 constitute over 61% of the cost per kWp, from a quarter in the early 2000s.[55]

Note that the prices mentioned above are for bare modules, another way of looking at module prices is to include installation costs. In the US, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association, the price of installed rooftop PV modules for homeowners fell from $9.00/W in 2006 to $5.46/W in 2011. Including the prices paid by industrial installations, the national installed price drops to $3.45/W. This is markedly higher than elsewhere in the world, in Germany homeowner rooftop installations averaged at $2.24/W. The cost differences are thought to be primarily based on the higher regulatory burden and lack of a national solar policy in the US.[84]

By the end of 2012 Chinese manufacturers had production costs of $0.50/W in the cheapest modules.[85] In some markets distributors of these modules can earn a considerable margin, buying at factory-gate price and selling at the highest price the market can support ('value-based pricing').[2]

In California PV reached grid parity in 2011, which is usually defined as PV production costs at or below retail electricity prices (though often still above the power station prices for coal or gas-fired generation without their distribution and other costs).[86] Grid parity had been reached in 19 markets in 2014.[87][88]

AWM Munich ETFE Cushions-Photovoltaics

The levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) is the cost per kWh based on the costs distributed over the project lifetime, and is thought to be a better metric for calculating viability than price per wattage. LCOEs vary dramatically depending on the location.[2] The LCOE can be considered the minimum price customers will have to pay the utility company in order for it to break even on the investment in a new power station.[4] Grid parity is roughly achieved when the LCOE falls to a similar price as conventional local grid prices, although in actuality the calculations are not directly comparable.[89] Large industrial PV installations had reached grid parity in California in 2011.[80][89] Grid parity for rooftop systems was still believed to be much farther away at this time.[89] Many LCOE calculations are not thought to be accurate, and a large amount of assumptions are required.[2][89] Module prices may drop further, and the LCOE for solar may correspondingly drop in the future.[90]

Because energy demands rise and fall over the course of the day, and solar power is limited by the fact that the sun sets, solar power companies must also factor in the additional costs of supplying a more stable alternative energy supplies to the grid in order to stabilize the system, or storing the energy somehow (current battery technology cannot store enough power). These costs are not factored into LCOE calculations, nor are special subsidies or premiums that may make buying solar power more attractive.[4] The unreliability and temporal variation in generation of solar and wind power is a major problem. Too much of these volatile power sources can cause instability of the entire grid.[91]

As of 2017 power-purchase agreement prices for solar farms below $0.05/kWh are common in the United States, and the lowest bids in some Persian Gulf countries were about $0.03/kWh.[92] The goal of the United States Department of Energy is to achieve a levelised cost of energy for solar PV of $0.03/kWh for utility companies.[93]

Financial incentives for photovoltaics, such as feed-in tariffs (FITs), have often been offered to electricity consumers to install and operate solar-electric generating systems, and in some countries such subsidies are the only way photovoltaics can remain economically profitable. In Germany FIT subsidies are generally around €0.13 above the normal retail price of a kWh (€0.05).[94] PV FITs have been crucial for the adoption of the industry, and are available to consumers in over 50 countries as of 2011. Germany and Spain have been the most important countries regarding offering subsidies for PV, and the policies of these countries have driven demand in the past.[2] Some US solar cell manufacturing companies have repeatedly complained that the dropping prices of PV module costs have been achieved due to subsidies by the government of China, and the dumping of these products below fair market prices. US manufacturers generally recommend high tariffs on foreign supplies to allow them remain profitable. In response to these concerns, the Obama administration began to levy tariffs on US consumers of these products in 2012 to raise prices for domestic manufacturers.[2] The USA, however, also subsidies the industry, offering consumers a 30% federal tax credit to purchase modules. In Hawaii federal and state subsidies chop off up to two thirds of the installation costs.[84]

Some environmentalists have promoted the idea that government incentives should be used in order to expand the PV manufacturing industry to reduce costs of PV-generated electricity much more rapidly to a level where it is able to compete with fossil fuels in a free market. This is based on the theory that when the manufacturing capacity doubles, economies of scale will cause the prices of the solar products to halve.[4]

In many countries there is access to capital is lacking to develop PV projects. To solve this problem, securitization has been proposed to accelerate development of solar photovoltaic projects.[86][95] For example, SolarCity offered the first U.S. asset-backed security in the solar industry in 2013.[96]

Photovoltaic power is also generated during a time of day that is close to peak demand (precedes it) in electricity systems with high use of air conditioning. Since large-scale PV operation requires back-up in the form of spinning reserves, its marginal cost of generation in the middle of the day is typically lowest, but not zero, when PV is generating electricity. This can be seen in Figure 1 of this paper:.[97] For residential properties with private PV facilities networked to the grid, the owner may be able earn extra money when the time of generation is included, as electricity is worth more during the day than at night.[98]

One journalist theorised in 2012 that if the energy bills of Americans were forced upwards by imposing an extra tax of $50/ton on carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power, this could have allowed solar PV to appear more cost-competitive to consumers in most locations.[83]

A photovoltaic system, or solar PV system is a power system designed to supply usable solar power by means of photovoltaics. It consists of an arrangement of several components, including solar panels to absorb and directly convert sunlight into electricity, a solar inverter to change the electric current from DC to AC, as well as mounting, cabling and other electrical accessories. PV systems range from small, roof-top mounted or building-integrated systems with capacities from a few to several tens of kilowatts, to large utility-scale power stations of hundreds of megawatts. Nowadays, most PV systems are grid-connected, while stand-alone systems only account for a small portion of the market.

Photosensors are sensors of light or other electromagnetic radiation.[108] A photo detector has a p–n junction that converts light photons into current. The absorbed photons make electron–hole pairs in the depletion region. Photodiodes and photo transistors are a few examples of photo detectors. Solar cells convert some of the light energy absorbed into electrical energy.

Copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS) is a thin film solar cell based on the copper indium diselenide (CIS) family of chalcopyrite semiconductors. CIS and CIGS are often used interchangeably within the CIS/CIGS community. The cell structure includes soda lime glass as the substrate, Mo layer as the back contact, CIS/CIGS as the absorber layer, cadmium sulfide (CdS) or Zn (S,OH)x as the buffer layer, and ZnO:Al as the front contact.[115] CIGS is approximately 1/100th the thickness of conventional silicon solar cell technologies. Materials necessary for assembly are readily available, and are less costly per watt of solar cell. CIGS based solar devices resist performance degradation over time and are highly stable in the field.

Reported global warming potential impacts of CIGS ranges 20.5–58.8 grams CO₂-eq/kWh of electricity generated for different solar irradiation (1,700 to 2,200 kWh/m²/y) and power conversion efficiency (7.8 – 9.12%).[116] EPBT ranges from 0.2 to 1.4 years,[71] while harmonized value of EPBT was found 1.393 years.[58] Toxicity is an issue within the buffer layer of CIGS modules because it contains cadmium and gallium.[53][117] CIS modules do not contain any heavy metals.

Dye-sensitized Solar Cells (DSCs) are a novel thin film solar cell. These solar cells operate under ambient light better than other photovoltaic technologies. They work with light being absorbed in a sensitizing dye between two charge transport materials. Dye surrounds TiO₂ nanoparticles which are in a sintered network.[125] TiO₂ acts as conduction band in an n-type semiconductor; the scaffold for adorned dye molecules and transports elections during excitation. For TiO₂ DSC technology, sample preparation at high temperatures is very effective because higher temperatures produce more suitable textural properties. Another example of DSCs is the copper complex with Cu (II/I) as a redox shuttle with TMBY (4,4',6,6'-tetramethyl-2,2'bipyridine). DSCs show great performance with artificial and indoor light. From a range of 200 lux to 2,000 lux, these cells operate at conditions of a maximum efficiency of 29.7%.[126]

However, there have been issues with DSCs, many of which come from the liquid electrolyte. The solvent is hazardous, and will permeate most plastics. Because it is liquid, it is unstable to temperature variation, leading to freezing in cold temperatures and expansion in warm temperatures causing failure.[127] Another disadvantage is that the solar cell is not ideal for large scale application because of its low efficiency. Some of the benefits for DSC is that it can be used in a variety of light levels (including cloudy conditions), it has a low production cost, and it does not degrade under sunlight, giving it a longer lifetime then other types of thin film solar cells.

Other possible future PV technologies include organic, dye-sensitized and quantum-dot photovoltaics.[128] Organic photovoltaics (OPVs) fall into the thin-film category of manufacturing, and typically operate around the 12% efficiency range which is lower than the 12–21% typically seen by silicon-based PVs. Because organic photovoltaics require very high purity and are relatively reactive they must be encapsulated which vastly increases the cost of manufacturing and means that they are not feasible for large scale-up. Dye-sensitized PVs are similar in efficiency to OPVs but are significantly easier to manufacture. However, these dye-sensitized photovoltaics present storage problems because the liquid electrolyte is toxic and can potentially permeate the plastics used in the cell. Quantum dot solar cells are solution-processed, meaning they are potentially scalable, but currently they peak at 12% efficiency.[112]

Organic and polymer photovoltaic (OPV) are a relatively new area of research. The tradition OPV cell structure layers consist of a semi-transparent electrode, electron blocking layer, tunnel junction, holes blocking layer, electrode, with the sun hitting the transparent electrode. OPV replaces silver with carbon as an electrode material lowering manufacturing cost and making them more environmentally friendly.[129] OPV are flexible, low weight, and work well with roll-to roll manufacturing for mass production.[130] OPV uses "only abundant elements coupled to an extremely low embodied energy through very low processing temperatures using only ambient processing conditions on simple printing equipment enabling energy pay-back times".[131] Current efficiencies range 1–6.5%,[56][132] however theoretical analyses show promise beyond 10% efficiency.[131]

Many different configurations of OPV exist using different materials for each layer. OPV technology rivals existing PV technologies in terms of EPBT even if they currently present a shorter operational lifetime. A 2013 study analyzed 12 different configurations all with 2% efficiency, the EPBT ranged from 0.29 to 0.52 years for 1 m² of PV.[133] The average CO₂-eq/kWh for OPV is 54.922 grams.[134]

A number of solar modules may also be mounted vertically above each other in a tower, if the zenith distance of the Sun is greater than zero, and the tower can be turned horizontally as a whole and each module additionally around a horizontal axis. In such a tower the modules can follow the Sun exactly. Such a device may be described as a ladder mounted on a turnable disk. Each step of that ladder is the middle axis of a rectangular solar panel. In case the zenith distance of the Sun reaches zero, the "ladder" may be rotated to the north or the south to avoid a solar module producing a shadow on a lower one. Instead of an exactly vertical tower one can choose a tower with an axis directed to the polar star, meaning that it is parallel to the rotation axis of the Earth. In this case the angle between the axis and the Sun is always larger than 66 degrees. During a day it is only necessary to turn the panels around this axis to follow the Sun. Installations may be ground-mounted (and sometimes integrated with farming and grazing)[136] or built into the roof or walls of a building (building-integrated photovoltaics).

Where land may be limited, PV can be deployed as floating solar. In 2008 the Far Niente Winery pioneered the world's first "floatovoltaic" system by installing 994 photovoltaic solar panels onto 130 pontoons and floating them on the winery's irrigation pond.[137][138] A benefit of the set up is that the panels are kept at a lower temperature than they would be on land, leading to a higher efficiency of solar energy conversion. The floating panels also reduce the amount of water lost through evaporation and inhibit the growth of algae.[139]

Concentrator photovoltaics is a technology that contrary to conventional flat-plate PV systems uses lenses and curved mirrors to focus sunlight onto small, but highly efficient, multi-junction solar cells. These systems sometimes use solar trackers and a cooling system to increase their efficiency.

Best research-cell efficiencies

In 2019, the world record for solar cell efficiency at 47.1% was achieved by using multi-junction concentrator solar cells, developed at National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Colorado, USA.[140] The highest efficiencies achieved without concentration include a material by Sharp Corporation at 35.8% using a proprietary triple-junction manufacturing technology in 2009,[141] and Boeing Spectrolab (40.7% also using a triple-layer design).

There is an ongoing effort to increase the conversion efficiency of PV cells and modules, primarily for competitive advantage. In order to increase the efficiency of solar cells, it is important to choose a semiconductor material with an appropriate band gap that matches the solar spectrum. This will enhance the electrical and optical properties. Improving the method of charge collection is also useful for increasing the efficiency. There are several groups of materials that are being developed. Ultrahigh-efficiency devices (η>30%)[142] are made by using GaAs and GaInP2 semiconductors with multijunction tandem cells. High-quality, single-crystal silicon materials are used to achieve high-efficiency, low cost cells (η>20%).

Recent developments in organic photovoltaic cells (OPVs) have made significant advancements in power conversion efficiency from 3% to over 15% since their introduction in the 1980s.[143] To date, the highest reported power conversion efficiency ranges 6.7–8.94% for small molecule, 8.4–10.6% for polymer OPVs, and 7–21% for perovskite OPVs.[144][145] OPVs are expected to play a major role in the PV market. Recent improvements have increased the efficiency and lowered cost, while remaining environmentally-benign and renewable.

Several companies have begun embedding power optimizers into PV modules called smart modules. These modules perform maximum power point tracking (MPPT) for each module individually, measure performance data for monitoring, and provide additional safety features. Such modules can also compensate for shading effects, wherein a shadow falling across a section of a module causes the electrical output of one or more strings of cells in the module to decrease.[146]

One of the major causes for the decreased performance of cells is overheating. The efficiency of a solar cell declines by about 0.5% for every 1 degree Celsius increase in temperature. This means that a 100 degree increase in surface temperature could decrease the efficiency of a solar cell by about half. Self-cooling solar cells are one solution to this problem. Rather than using energy to cool the surface, pyramid and cone shapes can be formed from silica, and attached to the surface of a solar panel. Doing so allows visible light to reach the solar cells, but reflects infrared rays (which carry heat).[147]