Quantum Efficiency of A Solar Cell - Comparison of Energy Conversion Efficiencies

Comparison of Energy Conversion Efficiencies

Energy conversion efficiency is measured by dividing the electrical power produced by the cell by the light power falling on the cell. Many factors influence the electrical power output, including spectral distribution, spatial distribution of power, temperature, and resistive load applied to the cell. IEC standard 61215 is used to compare the performance of cells and is designed around terrestrial, temperate conditions, using its standard temperature and conditions (STC): irradiance of 1 kW/m2, a spectral distribution close to solar radiation through AM (airmass) of 1.5 and a cell temperature 25 °C. The resistive load is varied until the peak or maximum power point (MPP) is achieved. The power at this point is recorded as Watt-peak (Wp). The same standard is used for measuring the power and efficiency of PV modules,

Air mass has an effect on power output. In space, where there is no atmosphere, the spectrum of the sun is relatively unfiltered. However, on earth, with air filtering the incoming light, the solar spectrum changes. To account for the spectral differences, a system was devised to calculate this filtering effect. Simply, the filtering effect ranges from Air Mass 0 (AM0) in space, to approximately Air Mass 1.5 on Earth. Multiplying the spectral differences by the quantum efficiency of the solar cell in question will yield the efficiency of the device. For example, a silicon solar cell in space might have an efficiency of 14% at AM0, but have an efficiency of 16% on earth at AM 1.5. Terrestrial efficiencies typically are greater than space efficiencies.

Solar cell efficiencies vary from 6% for amorphous silicon-based solar cells to 40.7% with multiple-junction research lab cells and 42.8% with multiple dies assembled into a hybrid package. Solar cell energy conversion efficiencies for commercially available multicrystalline Si solar cells are around 14-19%. The highest efficiency cells have not always been the most economical — for example a 30% efficient multijunction cell based on exotic materials such as gallium arsenide or indium selenide and produced in low volume might well cost one hundred times as much as an 8% efficient amorphous silicon cell in mass production, while only delivering about four times the electrical power.

However, there is a way to "boost" solar power. By increasing the light intensity, typically photogenerated carriers are increased, resulting in increased efficiency by up to 15%. These so-called "concentrator systems" have only begun to become cost-competitive as a result of the development of high efficiency GaAs cells. The increase in intensity is typically accomplished by using concentrating optics. A typical concentrator system may use a light intensity 6-400 times the sun, and increase the efficiency of a one sun GaAs cell from 31% at AM 1.5 to 35%.

A common method used to express economic costs of electricity-generating systems is to calculate a price per delivered kilowatt-hour (kWh). The solar cell efficiency in combination with the available irradiation has a major influence on the costs, but generally speaking the overall system efficiency is important. Using the commercially available solar cells (as of 2006) and system technology leads to system efficiencies between 5 and 19%. As of 2005, photovoltaic electricity generation costs ranged from ~0.60 US$/kWh (0.50 €/kWh) (central Europe) down to ~0.30 US$/kWh (0.25 €/kWh) in regions of high solar irradiation. This electricity is generally fed into the electrical grid on the customer's side of the meter. The cost can be compared to prevailing retail electric pricing (as of 2005), which varied from between 0.04 and 0.50 US$/kWh worldwide. These cost/kWh calculations will vary depending on the assumed useful life of the system. Most c-Si panels are warranted for 25 years and should see 35+ years of useful life.

Read more about this topic:  Quantum Efficiency Of A Solar Cell

Famous quotes containing the words comparison, energy and/or conversion:

    The comparison between Coleridge and Johnson is obvious in so far as each held sway chiefly by the power of his tongue. The difference between their methods is so marked that it is tempting, but also unnecessary, to judge one to be inferior to the other. Johnson was robust, combative, and concrete; Coleridge was the opposite. The contrast was perhaps in his mind when he said of Johnson: “his bow-wow manner must have had a good deal to do with the effect produced.”
    Virginia Woolf (1882–1941)

    Viewed narrowly, all life is universal hunger and an expression of energy associated with it.
    Mary Ritter Beard (1876–1958)

    The conversion of a savage to Christianity is the conversion of Christianity to savagery.
    George Bernard Shaw (1856–1950)