Abstract
Tandem solar cells are more efficient but more expensive per unit area than established single-junction (SJ) solar cells. To understand when specific tandem architectures should be utilized, we evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different II–VI-based thin-film tandem solar cells and compare them to the SJ subcells. Levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) and energy yield are calculated for four technologies: industrial cadmium telluride and copper indium gallium selenide, and their hypothetical two-terminal (series-connected subcells) and four-terminal (electrically independent subcells) tandems, assuming record SJ quality subcells. Different climatic conditions and scales (residential and utility scale) are considered. We show that, for US residential systems with current balance-of-system costs, the four-terminal tandem has the lowest LCOE because of its superior energy yield, even though it has the highest US$ per watt (US$ W–1) module cost. For utility-scale systems, the lowest LCOE architecture is the cadmium telluride single junction, the lowest US$ W–1 module. The two-terminal tandem requires decreased subcell absorber costs to reach competitiveness over the four-terminal one.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$119.00 per year
only $9.92 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Powell, D. M., Winkler, M. T., Goodrich, A. & Buonassisi, T. Modeling the cost and minimum sustainable price of crystalline silicon photovoltaic manufacturing in the United States. IEEE J. Photovolt. 3, 662–668 (2013).
de Vos, A. Detailed balance limit of the efficiency of tandem solar cells. J. Phys. D. 13, 839–846 (1980).
Henry, C. H. Limiting efficiencies of ideal single and multiple energy gap terrestrial solar cells. J. Appl. Phys. 51, 4494–4500 (1980).
Powell, D. M. et al. Crystalline silicon photovoltaics: a cost analysis framework for determining technology pathways to reach baseload electricity costs. Energy Environ. Sci. 5, 5874–5883 (2012).
Horowitz, K. A. W., Fu, R. & Woodhouse, M. An analysis of glass–glass CIGS manufacturing costs. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 154, 1–10 (2016).
Bobela, D. C., Gedvilas, L., Woodhouse, M., Horowitz, K. A. W. & Basore, P. A. Economic competitiveness of III–V on silicon tandem one-sun photovoltaic solar modules in favorable future scenarios. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 15, 41–48 (2016).
Nanayakkara, S. U., Horowitz, K., Kanevce, A., Woodhouse, M. & Basore, P. Evaluating the economic viability of CdTe/CIS and CIGS/CIS tandem photovoltaic modules. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl 25, 271–279 (2017).
Azzopardi, B. et al. Economic assessment of solar electricity production from organic-based photovoltaic modules in a domestic environment. Energy Environ. Sci. 4, 3741 (2011).
Louwen, A., Van Sark, W., Schropp, R. & Faaij, A. A cost roadmap for silicon heterojunction solar cells. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 147, 295–314 (2016).
Peters, I. M., Sofia, S., Mailoa, J. & Buonassisi, T. Techno-economic analysis of tandem photovoltaic systems. RSC Adv. 6, 66911–66923 (2016).
Mailoa, J. P. et al. Energy-yield prediction for II–VI-based thin-film tandem solar cells. Energy Environ. Sci. 9, 2644–2653 (2016).
Peters, I. M., Liu, H., Reindl, T. & Buonassisi, T. Global prediction of photovoltaic field performance differences using open-source satellite data. Joule 2, 307–322 (2018).
Fu, R. et al. US Solar Photovoltaic System Cost Benchmark: Q1 2016 NREL/TP-6A20-66532 (NationalRenewable Energy Laboratory, 2016).
Jones-Albertus, R., Feldman, D., Fu, R., Horowitz, K. & Woodhouse, M. Technology advances needed for photovoltaics to achieve widespread grid price parity. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 24, 1272–1283 (2016).
Cai, M. et al. Cost-performance analysis of perovskite solar modules. Adv. Sci. 4, 1600269 (2016).
Liu, D. & Kelly, T. L. Perovskite solar cells with a planar heterojunction structure prepared using room-temperature solution processing techniques. Nat. Photon 8, 133–138 (2014).
Goodrich, A., James, T. & Woodhouse, M. Residential, Commercial, and Utility-Scale Photovoltaic (PV) System Prices in the United States: Current Drivers and Cost-Reduction Opportunities NREL/TP-6A20-53347 (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2012).
Jiang, F. et al. Two-terminal perovskite/perovskite tandem solar cell. J. Mater. Chem. A. 4, 1208–1213 (2015).
Eperon, G. E. et al. Perovskite–perovskite tandem photovoltaics with optimized band gaps. Science 354, 861–865 (2016).
Rajagopal, A. et al. Highly efficient perovskite–perovskite tandem solar cells reaching 80% of the theoretical limit in photovoltage. Adv. Mater. 29, 1–10 (2017).
Bush, K. A. et al. 23.6%-efficient monolithic perovskite/silicon tandem solar cells with improved stability. Nat. Energy 2, 17009 (2017).
Duong, T. et al. Rubidium multication perovskite with optimized bandgap for perovskite–silicon tandem with over 26% efficiency. Adv. Energy Mater. 7, 1700228 (2017).
Yu, Z. J., Leilaeioun, M. & Holman, Z. Selecting tandem partners for silicon solar cells. Nat. Energy 1, 16137 (2016).
Paetzold, U. W. et al. Scalable perovskite/CIGS thin-film solar module with power conversion efficiency of 17.8%. J. Mater. Chem. A 5, 9897–9906 (2017).
Guchhait, A. et al. Over 20% efficient CIGS–perovskite tandem solar cells. ACS Energy Lett. 2, 807–812 (2017).
Mantilla-Perez, P. et al. Monolithic CIGS–perovskite tandem cell for optimal light harvesting without current matching. ACS Photonics 4, 861–867 (2017).
Faine, P., Kurtz, S. R., Riordan, C. & Olson, J. M. The influence of spectral solar irradiance variations on the performance of selected single-junction and multijunction solar cells. Sol. Cells 31, 259–278 (1991).
Liu, H. et al. The realistic energy yield potential of GaAs-on-Si tandem solar cells: a theoretical case study. Opt. Express 23, A382–A390 (2015).
Garland, J. W., Biegala, T., Carmody, M., Gilmore, C. & Sivananthan, S. Next-generation multijunction solar cells: the promise of II–VI materials. J. Appl. Phys. 109, 102423 (2011).
Green, M. A., Emery, K., Hishikawa, Y., Warta, W. & Dunlop, E. D. Solar cell efficiency tables (version 46). Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 23, 805–812 (2015).
Nakamura, M. et al. In 2014 IEEE 40th Photovolt. Spec. Conf. 107–110 (IEEE, 2014).
Gueymard, C. A. SMARTS, A Simple Model of the Atmospheric Radiative Transfer of Sunshine: Algorithms and Performance Assessment Professional Paper FSEC-PF-270-95 (Florida Solar Energy Center, 1995).
Gueymard, C. A. Parameterized transmittance model for direct beam and circumsolar spectral irradiance. Sol. Energy 71, 325–346 (2001).
Roberts, B. J. Photovoltaic Solar Resource of the United States (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2012); www.nrel.gov/gis/images/eere_pv/national_photovoltaic_2012-01.jpg
Modules: Our Technology (First Solar, accessed 26 February 2017); www.firstsolar.com/Modules/Our-Technology
First Solar 2015 Annual Report (First Solar, 2015); http://investor.firstsolar.com/static-files/eb9f8191-1f74-46ac-9678-7e118cfdf41f
Gee, J. M. A comparison of different module configurations for multi-band-gap solar cells. Sol. Cells 24, 147–155 (1988).
Fthenakis, V. et al. Life Cycle Inventories and Life Cycle Assessments of Photovoltaic Systems Life Cycle Inventories and Life Cycle Assessments of Photovoltaic Systems IEA-PVPS T12-02:2011 (International Energy Agency, Paris, 2011).
Sputtering Yield Rates (Semicore Equipment, Inc.); www.semicore.com/reference/sputtering-yields-reference
Indium Tin Oxide (ITO) for Deposition of Transparent Conductive Oxide Layers (Umicore, accessed 1 August 2016); www.thinfilmproducts.umicore.com/Products/TechnicalData/show_datenblatt_ito.pdf
Richard, D. On the cutting edge: thin-film laser structuring survey. Phot. Int. 9, 172–195 (2010).
Electric Power Monthly, Industrial, 2016 (US Energy Information Administration); https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_6_a
Siah, S.-C. Defect Engineering in Cuprous Oxide (Cu 2 O) Solar Cells (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2015).
System Advisory Model (SAM): Financial Model Documentation (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2010); https://sam.nrel.gov/financial
Jordan, D. C. & Kurtz, S. R. Photovoltaic degradation rates—an analytical review. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 21, 12–29 (2013).
Acknowledgements
This works was funded in part by the National Research Foundation Singapore through the Singapore-MIT Alliance for Research and Technology, the Bay Area Photovoltaic Consortium (BAPVC) under Contract no. DE-EE0004946, the US Department of Energy under Award no. DE-EE0006707 and the National Science Foundation (NSF) and Department of Energy (DOE) under NSF CA No. EEC-1041895. Numerous peer conversations at BAPVC are noted. This work additionally benefitted greatly from the prior work of D. M. Powell and S. C. Siah.
The CdTe cost model was made independently, without contribution from or corroboration by First Solar. The CIGS cost model was made independently, without contribution from or corroboration by Siva Power.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
S.E.S. compiled cost data and developed the cost model and analysis tools, with cost inputs and feedback contributed by D.N.W., B.J.S., I.M.P. and T.B. J.P.M. and S.E.S. performed energy-yield calculations. S.E.S. performed analysis and data visualization. I.M.P., T.B. and D.N.W. conceptualized the initial project. The manuscript was written by S.E.S. and edited by all the co-authors. I.M.P. provided lead mentorship. All the authors reviewed and approved the manuscript.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Supplementary Information
Supplementary Tables 1–9, Supplementary Methods, Supplementary Figure 1 and Supplementary References.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sofia, S.E., Mailoa, J.P., Weiss, D.N. et al. Economic viability of thin-film tandem solar modules in the United States. Nat Energy 3, 387–394 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-018-0126-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-018-0126-z
This article is cited by
-
Chalcopyrite solar cells —state-of-the-art and options for improvement
Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy (2023)
-
High-speed sequential deposition of photoactive layers for organic solar cell manufacturing
Nature Energy (2022)
-
Growth of (100)-orientation-preferred BiI3 nanoplate films by vapor transport deposition for photovoltaic application
Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Electronics (2022)
-
Life cycle assessment of recycling strategies for perovskite photovoltaic modules
Nature Sustainability (2021)
-
Electrodeposition of crystalline silicon films from silicon dioxide for low-cost photovoltaic applications
Nature Communications (2019)