Physics-based electrical modelling of CIGS thin-film photovoltaic modules for system-level energy yield simulations
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS) is a commercialized, high-efficiency thin-film photovoltaic (PV) technology. The state-of-the-art energy yield models for this technology have a significant normalized root mean square error (nRMSE) on power estimation: De Soto model—26.7%; PVsyst model—12%. In this work, we propose a physics-based electrical model for CIGS technology which can be used for system-level energy yield simulations by people across the PV value chain. The model was developed by considering models of significant electrical current pathways from literature and adapting it for the system-level simulation. We improved it further by incorporating temperature and irradiance dependence of parameters through characterisation at various operating conditions. We also devised a module level, non-destructive characterization strategy based on readily available measurement equipment to obtain the model parameters. The model was validated using the measurements from multiple commercial modules and has a significantly lower power estimationnRMSEof 1.2%.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Chalcogenide Semiconductor Thin Films · Photovoltaic System Optimization Techniques · solar cell performance optimization
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (30)
Show source-provided references
1. Philipps, S. & Warmuth, W. Photovoltaics Report—Fraunhofer ISE. https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/conte%0Ant/dam/ise/de/documents/publications/studies/Photovoltaics-Report.pdf (2020).
2. Corti, P., Bonomo, P., Frontini, F., Macé, P. & Bosch, E. Building Integrated Photovoltaics: A Practical Handbook For Solar Buildings’ Stakeholders Status Report. http://repository.supsi.ch/id/eprint/12186 (2020).
3. Moore, J. E., Dongaonkar, S., Chavali, R. V. K., Alam, M. A. & Lundstrom, M. S. Correlation of built-in potential and I-V crossover in thin-film solar cells. IEEE J. Photovolt. 4, 1138–1148 (2014).10.1109/JPHOTOV.2014.2316364 ↗
4. Gloeckler, M., Jenkins, C. R. & Sites, J. R. Explanation of light/dark superposition failure in CIGS solar cells. Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 763, 231–236 (2003).10.1557/PROC-763-B5.20 ↗
5. Chavali, R. V. K., Wilcox, J. R., Ray, B., Gray, J. L. & Alam, M. A. Correlated nonideal effects of dark and light I-V characteristics in a-Si/c-Si heterojunction solar cells. IEEE J. Photovolt. 4, 763–771 (2014).10.1109/JPHOTOV.2014.2307171 ↗
6. Sun, X., Silverman, T., Garris, R., Deline, C. & Alam, M. A. An Illumination-and Temperature-Dependent Analytical Model for Copper Indium Gallium Diselenide (CIGS) Solar Cells. IEEE J. Photovolt. 6, 1298–1307 (2016).10.1109/JPHOTOV.2016.2583790 ↗
7. Hegedus, S., Desai, D. & Thompson, C. Voltage dependent photocurrent collection in CdTe/CdS solar cells. Prog. Photovolt. 15, 587–602 (2007).10.1002/pip.767 ↗
8. Liu, X. X. & Sites, J. R. Solar-cell collection efficiency and its variation with voltage. J. Appl Phys. 75, 577–581 (1994).10.1063/1.355842 ↗
9. Williams, B. L. et al. Identifying parasitic current pathways in CIGS solar cells by modelling dark J-V response. Prog. Photovolt. 23, 1516–1525 (2015).10.1002/pip.2582 ↗
10. Kato, T., Tai, K. F., Yagioka, T., Kamada, R. & Sugimoto, H. Recombination analysis of CIGS solar cells using temperature and illumination dependent open-circuit voltage measurement. In: International Photovoltaic Science and Engineering Conference 1–4. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327972450_Recombination_analysis_of_CIGS_solar_cells_using_temperature_and_illumination_dependent_opencircuit_voltage_measurement (2016).
11. Rau, U. & Schock, H. W. Electronic properties of Cu(In,Ga)Se2 heterojunction solar cells-recent achievements, current understanding, and future challenges. Appl. Phys. A 69, 131–147 (1999).10.1007/s003390050984 ↗
12. Zelenina, A., Werner, F., Elanzeery, H., Melchiorre, M. & Siebentritt, S. Space-charge-limited currents in CIS-based solar cells. Appl. Phys. Lett. 111, 213903 (2017).10.1063/1.5006040 ↗
13. Dongaonkar, S. et al. Universal statistics of parasitic shunt formation in solar cells, and its implications for cell to module efficiency gap. Energy Environ. Sci. 6, 782–787 (2013).10.1039/c3ee24167j ↗
14. Dongaonkar, S. et al. Universality of non-Ohmic shunt leakage in thin-film solar cells. J. Appl. Phys. 108, 124509 (2010).10.1063/1.3518509 ↗
15. Liao, Y., Kuo, S., Hsieh, M., Lai, F. & Kao, M. A look into the origin of shunt leakage current of Cu (In, Ga) Se 2 solar cells via experimental and simulation methods. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 117, 145–151 (2013).10.1016/j.solmat.2013.05.031 ↗
16. King, D. L., Boyson, W. E. & Kratochvil, J. A. Photovoltaic Array Performance Model, SANDIA Report SAND2004-3535 Sandia Sandia National Laboratories (2004).
17. Farias Basulto, F. & Guillermo, A. CIGSSe Thin Film Photovoltaic Yield Improvement for Operating Conditions (Technical University Berlin, 2021). https://doi.org/10.14279/depositonce-12576.10.14279/depositonce-12576 ↗
18. Louwen, A., Schropp, R. E. I., van Sark, W. G. J. H. M. & Faaij, A. P. C. Geospatial analysis of the energy yield and environmental footprint of different photovoltaic module technologies. Sol. Energy 155, 1339–1353 (2017).10.1016/j.solener.2017.07.056 ↗
19. Blair, N. et al. System Advisor Model (SAM) General Description (OSTI.GOV, 2018).10.2172/1440404 ↗
20. Holmgren, W. F., Hansen, C. & Mikofski, M. A. pvlib python: a python package for modeling solar energy systems. J. Open Source Softw. 3, 884 (2018).10.21105/joss.00884 ↗
21. Sauer, K. J., Roessler, T. & Hansen, C. W. Modeling the irradiance and temperature dependence of photovoltaic modules in PVsyst. IEEE J. Photovolt. 5, 152–158 (2015).10.1109/JPHOTOV.2014.2364133 ↗
22. Sellner, S., Sutterluti, J., Schreier, L. & Ransome, S. Advanced PV module performance characterization and validation using the novel Loss Factors Model. In: 2012 38th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference 002938–002943 (IEEE, 2012). https://doi.org/10.1109/PVSC.2012.6318201.10.1109/PVSC.2012.6318201 ↗
23. de Soto, W., Klein, S. A. & Beckman, W. A. Improvement and validation of a model for photovoltaic array performance. Sol. Energy 80, 78–88 (2006).10.1016/j.solener.2005.06.010 ↗
24. Laudani, A., Riganti Fulginei, F. & Salvini, A. Identification of the one-diode model for photovoltaic modules from datasheet values. Sol. Energy 108, 432–446 (2014).10.1016/j.solener.2014.07.024 ↗
25. Pysch, D., Mette, A. & Glunz, S. W. A review and comparison of different methods to determine the series resistance of solar cells. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 91, 1698–1706 (2007).10.1016/j.solmat.2007.05.026 ↗
26. Wolf, M. & Rauschenbach, H. Series resistance effects on solar cell measurements. Adv. Energy Convers. 3, 455–479 (1963).10.1016/0365-1789(63)90063-8 ↗
27. Diantoro, M. et al. Shockley’s equation Fit analyses for solar cell parameters from I-V curves. Int. J. Photoenergy 2018, 1–7 (2018).10.1155/2018/9214820 ↗
28. Virtanen, P. et al. SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python. Nat. Methods 17, 261–272 (2020).10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 ↗
29. IEC 61853-1 Photovoltaic (PV) Module Performance Testing and Energy Rating—Part 1: Irradiance and Temperature Performance Measurements and Power Rating (International Standard, 2011).
30. Wavelabs-SINUS-2100. Wavelabs https://wavelabs.de/products/sinus-2100-parachute/.