Article | Published:

Performance of perovskite solar cells under simulated temperature-illumination real-world operating conditions

Abstract

Since reaching 20% efficiency, research in perovskite photovoltaics has shifted from a race for efficiency to a race for stability. For efficiency, the standard test conditions set the rules for the race. However, the term ‘stability’ is used very broadly and assessed in various ways, meaning different groups are running different races. For the application, only energy yields that can be achieved under real-world, long-term operation matter. Here, we characterize and analyse the performance of an efficient perovskite solar cell (PSC) under simulated ambient conditions based on real temperature and irradiance data from selected days over one year at a location in central Europe. We find that the PSC shows only a low decrease of efficiency with elevated temperature and low light intensity, maintaining almost optimum values for ambient conditions, under which most of the solar energy is incident on the solar cell. The overall energy yield differs from what is expected from standard test condition measurements and is influenced by reversible degradation (delivering the highest performance in the morning) and by a slight permanent degradation that is observable during the year. With reference to tandem cells, we compare the PSC with a silicon device.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Data availability

The data (weather data and measured efficiencies of two PSCs and two SHJs) that support Figs. 15 are available in Supplementary Data 1, along with data from initial JV scans. Any other data that support the plots within this paper and other findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

References

  1. 1.

    Correa-Baena, J.-P. et al. Promises and challenges of perovskite solar cells. Science 358, 739–744 (2017).

  2. 2.

    Yang, W. S. et al. Iodide management in formamidinium-lead-halide-based perovskite layers for efficient solar cells. Science 356, 1376–1379 (2017).

  3. 3.

    Jiang, Q. et al. Surface passivation of perovskite film for efficient solar cells. Nat. Photon. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41566-019-0398-2 (2019).

  4. 4.

    Best Research-Cell Efficiency Chart (NREL, 2019); https://www.nrel.gov/pv/cell-efficiency.html

  5. 5.

    Yoshikawa, K. et al. Silicon heterojunction solar cell with interdigitated back contacts for a photoconversion efficiency over 26%. Nat. Energy 2, 17032 (2017).

  6. 6.

    Cuce, E., Cuce, P. M. & Bali, T. An experimental analysis of illumination intensity and temperature dependency of photovoltaic cell parameters. Appl. Energy 111, 374–382 (2013).

  7. 7.

    Leong, W. L. et al. Identifying fundamental limitations in halide perovskite solar cells. Adv. Mater. 28, 2439–2445 (2016).

  8. 8.

    Jacobsson, T. J., Tress, W., Correa-Baena, J.-P., Edvinsson, T. & Hagfeldt, A. Room temperature as a Goldilocks environment for CH3NH3PbI3 perovskite solar cells: the importance of temperature on device performance. J. Phys. Chem. C 120, 11382–11393 (2016).

  9. 9.

    Dunbar, R. B. et al. Device pre-conditioning and steady-state temperature dependence of CH3NH3PbI3 perovskite solar cells. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 25, 533–544 (2017).

  10. 10.

    Domanski, K., Alharbi, E. A., Hagfeldt, A., Grätzel, M. & Tress, W. Systematic investigation of the impact of operation conditions on the degradation behaviour of perovskite solar cells. Nat. Energy 3, 61–67 (2018).

  11. 11.

    Reese, M. O. et al. Consensus stability testing protocols for organic photovoltaic materials and devices. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 95, 1253–1267 (2011).

  12. 12.

    Saliba, M. et al. Incorporation of rubidium cations into perovskite solar cells improves photovoltaic performance. Science 354, 206–209 (2016).

  13. 13.

    Tan, H. et al. Efficient and stable solution-processed planar perovskite solar cells via contact passivation. Science 355, 722–726 (2017).

  14. 14.

    Christians, J. A. et al. Tailored interfaces of unencapsulated perovskite solar cells for >1,000 hour operational stability. Nat. Energy 3, 68–74 (2018).

  15. 15.

    Bush, K. A. et al. 23.6%-efficient monolithic perovskite/silicon tandem solar cells with improved stability. Nat. Energy 2, 20179 (2017).

  16. 16.

    Bag, M. et al. Kinetics of ion transport in perovskite active layers and its implications for active layer stability. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 137, 13130–13137 (2015).

  17. 17.

    Nie, W. et al. Light-activated photocurrent degradation and self-healing in perovskite solar cells. Nat. Commun. 7, 11574 (2016).

  18. 18.

    Tress, W., Correa Baena, J. P., Saliba, M., Abate, A. & Graetzel, M. Inverted current–voltage hysteresis in mixed perovskite solar cells: polarization, energy barriers, and defect recombination. Adv. Energy Mater. 6, 1600396 (2016).

  19. 19.

    Domanski, K. et al. Migration of cations induces reversible performance losses over day/night cycling in perovskite solar cells. Energy Environ. Sci. 10, 604–613 (2017).

  20. 20.

    Khenkin, M. V. et al. Reconsidering figures of merit for the performance and stability of perovskite photovoltaics. Energy Environ. Sci. 11, 739–743 (2018).

  21. 21.

    Li, X. et al. Outdoor performance and stability under elevated temperatures and long-term light soaking of triple-layer mesoporous perovskite photovoltaics. Energy Technol. 3, 551–555 (2015).

  22. 22.

    Bella, F. et al. Improving efficiency and stability of perovskite solar cells with photocurable fluoropolymers. Science 354, 203–206 (2016).

  23. 23.

    Akbulatov, A. F. et al. Effect of electron-transport material on light-induced degradation of inverted planar junction perovskite solar cells. Adv. Energy Mater. 7, 1700476 (2017).

  24. 24.

    Reyna, Y. et al. Performance and stability of mixed FAPbI3(0.85)MAPbBr3(0.15) halide perovskite solar cells under outdoor conditions and the effect of low light irradiation. Nano Energy 30, 570–579 (2016).

  25. 25.

    Stoichkov, V. et al. Outdoor performance monitoring of perovskite solar cell mini-modules: diurnal performance, observance of reversible degradation and variation with climatic performance. Sol. Energy 170, 549–556 (2018).

  26. 26.

    Christians, J. A., Habisreutinger, S. N., Berry, J. J. & Luther, J. M. Stability in perovskite photovoltaics: a paradigm for newfangled technologies. ACS Ener. Lett. 3, 2136–2143 (2018).

  27. 27.

    Cheacharoen, R. et al. Encapsulating perovskite solar cells to withstand damp heat and thermal cycling. Sustain. Energy Fuels 2, 2398–2406 (2018).

  28. 28.

    Sahli, F. et al. Fully textured monolithic perovskite/silicon tandem solar cells with 25.2% power conversion efficiency. Nat. Mater. 17, 820–826 (2018).

  29. 29.

    Saliba, M. et al. Cesium-containing triple cation perovskite solar cells: improved stability, reproducibility and high efficiency. Energy Environ. Sci. 9, 1989–1997 (2016).

  30. 30.

    Descoeudres, A. et al. >21% efficient silicon heterojunction solar cells on n- and p-type wafers compared. IEEE J. Photovolt. 3, 83–89 (2013).

  31. 31.

    Unger, E. L. et al. Hysteresis and transient behavior in current–vvoltage measurements of hybrid-perovskite absorber solar cells. Energy Environ. Sci. 7, 3690–3698 (2014).

  32. 32.

    Tress, W. et al. Understanding the rate-dependent J–V hysteresis, slow time component, and aging in CH3NH3PbI3 perovskite solar cells: the role of a compensated electric field. Energy Environ. Sci. 8, 995–1004 (2015).

  33. 33.

    Tress, W. et al. Interpretation and evolution of open-circuit voltage, recombination, ideality factor and subgap defect states during reversible light-soaking and irreversible degradation of perovskite solar cells. Energy Environ. Sci. 11, 151–165 (2018).

  34. 34.

    Tress, W. Organic Solar Cells: Theory, Experiment, and Device Simulation (Springer, 2014).

  35. 35.

    Mishima, T., Taguchi, M., Sakata, H. & Maruyama, E. Development status of high-efficiency HIT solar cells. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 95, 18–21 (2011).

  36. 36.

    Haschke, J. et al. The impact of silicon solar cell architecture and cell interconnection on energy yield in hot & sunny climates. Energy Environ. Sci. 10, 1196–1206 (2017).

  37. 37.

    Dualeh, A., Moehl, T., Nazeeruddin, M. K. & Grätzel, M. Temperature dependence of transport properties of spiro-MeOTAD as a hole transport material in solid-state dye-sensitized solar cells. ACS Nano 7, 2292–2301 (2013).

  38. 38.

    Snaith, H. J. & Grätzel, M. Electron and hole transport through mesoporous TiO2 infiltrated with spiro-MeOTAD. Adv. Mater. 19, 3643–3647 (2007).

  39. 39.

    Katz, E. A. et al. Temperature dependence for the photovoltaic device parameters of polymer-fullerene solar cells under operating conditions. J. Appl. Phys. 90, 5343–5350 (2001).

  40. 40.

    Dupré, O., Niesen, B., De Wolf, S. & Ballif, C. Field performance versus standard test condition efficiency of tandem solar cells and the singular case of perovskites/silicon devices. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 9, 446–458 (2018).

  41. 41.

    Domanski, K. et al. Not all that glitters is gold: metal-migration-induced degradation in perovskite solar cells. ACS Nano 10, 6306–6314 (2016).

  42. 42.

    Arora, N. et al. Perovskite solar cells with CuSCN hole extraction layers yield stabilized efficiencies greater than 20%. Science 358, 768–771 (2017).

  43. 43.

    Faiman, D. Assessing the outdoor operating temperature of photovoltaic modules. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 16, 307–315 (2008).

  44. 44.

    Koehl, M., Heck, M., Wiesmeier, S. & Wirth, J. Modeling of the nominal operating cell temperature based on outdoor weathering. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 95, 1638–1646 (2011).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank R. Monnard, B. Niessen and M. Boccard from PV-Lab Neuchâtel for providing the SHJs. We acknowledge the Swiss Federal Office MeteoSwiss for making the weather data available. W.T. acknowledges funding from the Swiss National Science Foundation through an Ambizione Energy fellowship. E.A.A. and M.G. acknowledge King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology for financial support under a joint research project.

Author information

W.T. designed the study and wrote the manuscript. W.T., K.D. and A.A. performed the experiment and analysed the data. B.C. further analysed the data and prepared the figures. A.A. prepared the weather data. E.A.A. fabricated the PSCs. K.D., B.C. and A.A. contributed to discussions and writing. M.G. and A.H. supervised the students.

Correspondence to Wolfgang Tress.

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 Figures

Supplementary Figs. 1–12

Reporting Summary

Supplementary Data 1

Data for two SHJs and two PSCs presented in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Further reading

Fig. 1: Dependence of performance on light intensity and temperature for the SHJ and PSC.
Fig. 2: Accumulated and averaged performance data as a function of temperature and light intensity over 24 d from a 1-year period.
Fig. 3: Averaged performance on 24 selected days over a 1-year period.
Fig. 4: Degradation as a function of light intensity and temperature for the PSC.
Fig. 5: Reversible losses for the PSC.