Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Economic viability of thin-film tandem solar modules in the United States

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 options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Device architectures schematics.
Fig. 2: Module costs.
Fig. 3: 2016 system-cost scenario LCOE values.
Fig. 4: Reduced system cost scenario LCOE values.
Fig. 5: Analysis of the impact of system-cost variability.
Fig. 6: Analysis of the impact of the absorber price.

References

  1. 1.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    de Vos, A. Detailed balance limit of the efficiency of tandem solar cells. J. Phys. D. 13, 839–846 (1980).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Henry, C. H. Limiting efficiencies of ideal single and multiple energy gap terrestrial solar cells. J. Appl. Phys. 51, 4494–4500 (1980).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    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).

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Peters, I. M., Sofia, S., Mailoa, J. & Buonassisi, T. Techno-economic analysis of tandem photovoltaic systems. RSC Adv. 6, 66911–66923 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Mailoa, J. P. et al. Energy-yield prediction for II–VI-based thin-film tandem solar cells. Energy Environ. Sci. 9, 2644–2653 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Fu, R. et al. US Solar Photovoltaic System Cost Benchmark: Q1 2016 NREL/TP-6A20-66532 (NationalRenewable Energy Laboratory, 2016).

  14. 14.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Cai, M. et al. Cost-performance analysis of perovskite solar modules. Adv. Sci. 4, 1600269 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    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).

  18. 18.

    Jiang, F. et al. Two-terminal perovskite/perovskite tandem solar cell. J. Mater. Chem. A. 4, 1208–1213 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Eperon, G. E. et al. Perovskite–perovskite tandem photovoltaics with optimized band gaps. Science 354, 861–865 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Bush, K. A. et al. 23.6%-efficient monolithic perovskite/silicon tandem solar cells with improved stability. Nat. Energy 2, 17009 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Duong, T. et al. Rubidium multication perovskite with optimized bandgap for perovskite–silicon tandem with over 26% efficiency. Adv. Energy Mater. 7, 1700228 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Yu, Z. J., Leilaeioun, M. & Holman, Z. Selecting tandem partners for silicon solar cells. Nat. Energy 1, 16137 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Guchhait, A. et al. Over 20% efficient CIGS–perovskite tandem solar cells. ACS Energy Lett. 2, 807–812 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Mantilla-Perez, P. et al. Monolithic CIGS–perovskite tandem cell for optimal light harvesting without current matching. ACS Photonics 4, 861–867 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Nakamura, M. et al. In 2014 IEEE 40th Photovolt. Spec. Conf. 107–110 (IEEE, 2014).

  32. 32.

    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).

  33. 33.

    Gueymard, C. A. Parameterized transmittance model for direct beam and circumsolar spectral irradiance. Sol. Energy 71, 325–346 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    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

  35. 35.

    Modules: Our Technology (First Solar, accessed 26 February 2017); www.firstsolar.com/Modules/Our-Technology

  36. 36.

    First Solar 2015 Annual Report (First Solar, 2015); http://investor.firstsolar.com/static-files/eb9f8191-1f74-46ac-9678-7e118cfdf41f

  37. 37.

    Gee, J. M. A comparison of different module configurations for multi-band-gap solar cells. Sol. Cells 24, 147–155 (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    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).

  39. 39.

    Sputtering Yield Rates (Semicore Equipment, Inc.); www.semicore.com/reference/sputtering-yields-reference

  40. 40.

    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

  41. 41.

    Richard, D. On the cutting edge: thin-film laser structuring survey. Phot. Int. 9, 172–195 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Electric Power Monthly, Industrial, 2016 (US Energy Information Administration); https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_6_a

  43. 43.

    Siah, S.-C. Defect Engineering in Cuprous Oxide (Cu 2 O) Solar Cells (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2015).

  44. 44.

    System Advisory Model (SAM): Financial Model Documentation (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2010); https://sam.nrel.gov/financial

  45. 45.

    Jordan, D. C. & Kurtz, S. R. Photovoltaic degradation rates—an analytical review. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 21, 12–29 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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

Affiliations

Authors

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

Correspondence to Sarah E. Sofia, Tonio Buonassisi or I. Marius Peters.

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

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing