PV Module Technologies: Review & Analysis of Photovoltaic Systems

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337195909
A review and analysis of technologies applied in PV modules
Conference Paper · November 2019
DOI: 10.1109/ISGT-LA.2019.8895369
CITATIONS
READS
35
10,750
5 authors, including:
Daniel Mesquita
João Lucas de Souza Silva
State University of Campinas (UNICAMP)
State University of Campinas (UNICAMP)
7 PUBLICATIONS 50 CITATIONS
67 PUBLICATIONS 324 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Hugo Moreira
Michelle Kitayama da Silva
State University of Campinas (UNICAMP)
Heriot-Watt University
30 PUBLICATIONS 288 CITATIONS
15 PUBLICATIONS 147 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by João Lucas de Souza Silva on 02 December 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
SEE PROFILE
A review and analysis of technologies applied in
PV modules
Marcelo G. Villalva, Member, IEEE
Daniel de B. Mesquita, João Lucas de S. Silva,
Hugo S. Moreira, Michelle Kitayama
School of Electrical and Computer Engineering (FEEC)
University of Campinas (Unicamp)
Campinas, Brazil
Emails: [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected]
Abstract—The implementation of photovoltaic (PV) systems as
an alternative source of energy emerges in the electric sector. In
this scenario, the challenge arises to present increasingly efficient
solutions for PV conversion. As part of these solutions, several
types of technology related to PV modules gain prominence in the
scientific milieu and in the market dominated by monocrystalline
and polycrystalline silicon technologies. Examples are half-cell,
double glass, bifacial, PERC, HIT, amorphous silicon, CdTe
(cadmium telluride) and CIGS (copper indium gallium selenide)
that have the potential for innovation, however, they need to
be studied and compared. In this instance, the purpose of this
paper is to study the different types of technologies applied in
PV modules, verifying the potential of PV conversion of each
technology. To evaluate the potential of the technologies, the
PV*SOL software was used, limiting an area for the installation
of PV modules and simulating the different types of technologies
in the limited area. The system with HIT modules presented
the best relationship between generated energy and area. HIT
technology still presents a high-cost market, meanwhile this
technology is expected to be cost-effective in the coming years.
Index Terms—PV modules, PV technology, silicon crystalline,
thin film
I. I NTRODUCTION
The photovoltaic (PV) effect that allows the direct conversion of solar energy into electric energy [1], was discovered
in 1839 by a french physicist named Alexandre-Edmond Becquerel (1820-1891) [2]. However, it was only in the 1950s that
the production of PV cells was initiated by Bell laboratories
[3]. Since then, several types of research have been performed
on studies of PV cells.
With the development of PV technology in the market, in
2017 considering the new implementations of power generation, 40% of the capacity was PV power, between fossil,
nuclear, wind, hydro, and other renewable, if continued growth
can result until 2025 in the production of 10% of world
electricity [4]. Therefore, it is important to continue the evolution with regard to PV devices, always seeking to increase
efficiency in the energy conversion process.
Regarding to PV modules, the market has the challenge of
innovating and adapting to improve the efficiency of energy
conversion, increase the useful life and reduce costs. These
challenges opened space to several technologies of PV mod-
School of Electrical and Computer Engineering (FEEC)
University of Campinas (Unicamp)
Campinas, Brazil
Email: [email protected]
ules to emerge in the market which is currently dominated
by monocrystalline and polycrystalline silicon technologies.
Other technologies such as PERC, half-cell, double glass,
bifacial, GaAs and HJT, have the potential for innovation,
however, they need to be studied and compared.
In this instance, the purpose of this paper is to study
the different types of technologies applied to PV modules,
verifying the potential of PV conversion of each technology.
The study described in this paper, presents and describes the
operation of the main PV technologies available in the market,
and later uses PV*SOL software, limiting an area for the
installation of PV modules and simulating the different types
of technologies in the limited area. In this way, it is possible
to observe the performance per area of each PV technology,
contributing scientifically to the information of which PV
technology available in the market has the best generation and
area ratio.
The paper follows with section II on technologies of PV
modules explaining each type of technology, then section III
with the description of the simulations, section IV with the
results of the simulations and section V with the conclusions
obtained in the paper.
II. T ECHNOLOGIES OF PHOTOVOLTAIC MODULES
This section describes briefly the main technologies of photovoltaic modules available commercially. Currently, technologies derived from crystalline silicon such as monocrystalline,
multicrystalline, PERC, half-cell, double glass, bifacial, GaAs
and HIT modules account for 90 to 95% of the world market for photovoltaic energy. All thin-film technologies such
as amorphous silicon, CdS / CdTe and CIS represent the
remainder of the worldwide photovoltaic market [5]. This
majority in the market of crystalline silicon technologies is
due to the increase of energy conversion efficiency, low cost
of production and its reliability.
A. Crystalline silicon technologies
Silicon (Si) is the second most abundant element in the
world, behind only the oxygen (O2) [6]. This material is the
main element in the manufacturing process of photovoltaic
solar cells with crystalline silicon technology. In the following
section, a review on the crystalline silicon technologies is
performed.
1) Monocrystalline silicon technology: The monocrystalline silicon is the oldest PV technology. Currently, with this
technology, it is possible to obtain an efficiency higher than
25% in laboratory conditions. [7] [8], although, for commercial
purposes, the value of efficiency drops slightly, achieving
values within 15-22% [9]. The efficiency fluctuates according
to the manufacturing process.
The majority of the monocrystalline silicon cells are fabricated through the Czochralski process, which was created
in 1916 by the folish chemist Jan Czochralski [10]. The
fabrication process of the cells require a material purity of
99,9999%. As the electricity conduction of pure silicon is
low, a small quantity (parts per million of impurity) of other
materials such as boron or phosphorus are added to the cell
and therefore the electrical characteristics are changed, thus
improving the conduction capacity of the material. Depending
on the material added to the mix, the silicon become n-type
or p-type.
After the fusion stage, a crystal seed is placed at the end of a
rotary axis and dipped in silicon. The rotary axis begins to rise
slowly turning counterclockwise while the crucible remains
fixed, forming a cylindrical silicon ingot.In orfer to the silicon
ingot to be considered of good quality it is necessary to have
a high control of the temperature gradient, rotation and speed
of the process. In addition, it is important that the process is
carried out in an inert atmosphere, such as argon, and in an
inert chamber [11]. Fig. 1 illustrates the Czochralski process.
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the Czochralski process [12]
The cylindrical ingot is cut into circular waffers for the manufacture of the PV cells that will be used in the manufacture
of PV modules. However, the need to save space on the PV
module requires that the cylindrical waffers have their edges
cut off, transforming into square waffers with their bevelled
edges. This process improves the utilization of the space, but
causes great waste of the cut and unused material.
The aspect of a monocrystalline cell is uniform, usually dark
blue or black, and may vary on different color depending on
the type of anitireflexive treatment that it receives [13]. Fig.2
illustrates a cell and a monocrystalline module.
Fig. 2. Monocrystalline silicon cell and photovoltaic module.
2) Polycrystalline technology: Polycrystalline silicon modules are another technologie derivated from crystalline silicon.
These modules have their first efficiency records in 1984. At
that time, laboratory tests recorded efficiency values below
15% . Although, nowadays, it is possible to reach efficiency
of 22,3% in laboratory environment [7] [8] and for largescale production efficiency is in the range of 14 - 20% [9].
Compared with the monocrystalline technology, one can notice
lower efficiency levels. Although, the production costs and the
silicon residues generated are also reduced. [14].
The low costs in the manufacturing process of the polycrystalline silicon is due to the fabrication method of block
smelting. This method does not need the extraction stage
for the formation of the ingot. The silicon is melted and
poured in a square coated with SiO/SiN graphite crucible. Next
the material undergoes a controlled cooling process which
produces a solid block of polycrystalline silicon [15]. Then
the block is cut into square waffers for the manufacture of the
solar cells.
The disadvantage of this method is that the higher polycrystalline silicon contact with the crucible allows a greater transfer of impurity from the crucible to the block of polycrystalline
silicon. Thus, polycrystalline cells obtain lower efficiency
values compared with monocrystalline cells. However, the fact
that the waffers have a square shape make it not necessary to
cut the edges of the cells because they are already produced
in the ideal geometry for the best use of the space in the
modules. Therefore, despite the lower efficiency, compared
to monocrystalline cells, the lower manufacturing cost, the
smaller amount of residues and the better use of the space
in the modules make polycrystalline cells attractive.
The Fig. 3 illustrates a polycrystalline cell and module. This
technology has the characteristic of presenting a heterogeneous
aspect, normally they are found in blue color, but its color can
differ according to the antireflexive treatment employed [13].
3) Half-cell technology: Half-cell is a technology used in
the manufacture of photovoltaic modules with high expectation of participating in the market. the ninth edition of the
International Technology Roadmap for Photovoltaic (ITRPV)
predicts that the participation in the market of the half-cells
will increase from 5% in 2018 to almost 40% in 2028 [16].
Conventional crystalline silicon modules have 60 and 72
cells. The half-cell modules have 120 and 144 half-cells, which
improves the performance and longevity of the module. The
Fig. 5. Conventional module and Double glass module structure, respectively
[20].
Fig. 3. Polycrystalline silicon cell and module.
cell area directly influences the current of the cell. Therefore,
when the cell is cut in half, this half cell will be able to
generate a current equivalent to half the current value of a
complete cell. Due to current reduction the resistive losses
become smaller, allowing the two half cells to produce a
little more energy than a complete cell [17]. Manufacturers
estimate that half-cell modules have an efficiency gain of 3
% [18]. Another characteristic of the half-cells is the smaller
probability of cracks caused by mechanical stress due to the
smaller area compared to a complete cell. Therefore, the
likelihood of hot spots also decreases.
By achieving lower power values, the mandatory spacing
between the half cells is less than the complete cell spacing,
allowing a better utilization of the module area. The half-cell
modules typically use serial-parallel-serial (SPS) connections
as shown in the Fig.4. This type of connection allows half-cell
modules to have a better response to shading, since one half
of the module is not affected by the other. In addition, the SPS
connection makes it possible to maintain voltage and current
levels similar to the conventional modules [19].
EVA encapsulant degradation, delamination, corrosion in the
cell grid line and snail tracks [21]. As a result, the module
provides greater mechanical strenghth and durability.
5) Bifacial technology: While conventional modules have
an opaque backside, then absorving direct and diffuse irradiance only at the front, the bifacial modules are capable of
converting irradiance into electrical energy in both front and
backside. There are double glass modules that is possible to
observe the backside of the cells, however, to be considered
a bifacial module, the cells need to have a metal busbars in
both front and backside, as can be seen in the Fig. 6.
Fig. 6. Cell and bifacil module.
The extra is power output obtained from the back of the
module allows a gain of 5 to 30% when compared to a
conventional equivalent module, depending on how and where
the module installed [22]. According to TUVRheinland [23],
the expectation of efficiency gain fluctuates depending on the
surface on where the modules were installed as shown in the
Table I.
Fig. 4. Half-cell module and schematic SPS Connection.
4) Double glass technology: The conventional modules are
made with a aluminum frame, front glass, encapsulating EVA,
photovoltaic cells, EVA encapsulant, backsheet and junction
box. The double glass modules are made with glass on the
front, EVA encapsulant, photovoltaic cells, EVA encapsulant,
glass on the back and junction box as shown in the Fig. 5.
The absence of the metal structure makes the modules less
vulnerable to the effect of PID (Potential Induced Degradation). In addition, the glass increases the impermeability of
the module, therefore decreasing the moisture hazards such as
TABLE I
I MPACT OF G ROUND R EFLECTANCE
Surface
Albedo
Water
Bare Soil
Green grassland,
gravel
Concrete ground /
white gravel
Dry / dune sand
Reflective roof
coatings
Fresh snow
5-8%
10-20%
Expected
yield gain
4-6%
6-8%
15-25%
7-9%
25-35%
8-10%
35-45%
10-15%
80-90%
23-25%
80-95%
25-30%
6) PERC (Passivated Emitter Rear Cell) technology: A
conventional crystalline silicon cell does not absorb part of
the radiation that arrives at the cell’s surface. This occurs
due to the fact that the silicon layer does not absorb all the
wavelengths. As a result, some wavelengths surpass all the
layers of the silicon until they reach the metalized backside,
therefore wasting energy. In order to overcome this problem,
the PERC cell is coated between the silicon and the aluminium
backside through a dialectric layer that prevents the waste
of energy by reflecting the irradiance. This process allows
the silicon layers to absorb some wavelengths that would
otherwise be wasted, as shown in the Fig. 7.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 7. Structure of: (a) a conventional cell; (b) a PERC cell
Due to the recovery of most electrons, the modules with
PERC cells reach higher values of current and power. Additionally, they perform better on occasions of low irradiance
and lower temperature coefficients. According to [16] [4],
there are currently PERC cells which efficiency reached values
above 22.5% if they are monocrystalline, and 21% if they are
polycrystalline.
7) HIT (heterostructure with intrinsic thin layer) technology: HIT cells are hybrid cells which generally combine
crystalline silicon with non-crystalline silicon. As can be seen
in the Fig.8, the cells are composed of n-type crystalline silicon
with deposition of intrinsic amorphous silicon, amorphous
silicon of p-type and n-type.
Fig. 8. Structure of a HIT cell [24]
These cells combine the advantage of crystalline silicon,
such as high efficiency and high stability, with the advantages
of amorphous silicon, such as low temperature and relatively
less expensive manufacturing process [25]. Thus, these cells
reach efficiency levels above 23.7% [16]. Therefore, the modules manufactured with HIT cells are capable of delivering
greater output power than other technologies.
B. Thin film technologies
Thin film photovoltaic modules use less material and manufacturing processes compared with the crystalline silicon
[26]. As it requires less material, the solar cell produced by
this technology is very thin, around 35 to 260nm [27]. The
thin layer of photovoltaic material is placed on a substrate,
which is usually glass. For this reason, thin film modules are
cheaper, but less efficient than crystalline silicon modules. To
compensate the lower efficiency, thin film modules perform
better under low irradiance conditions, better aesthetic options,
flexibility and light weight.
Thin film devices are produced in any size and the only
restriction is the base area for manufacturing the module. For
this reason the distinction between the cell and module does
not exist in modules that use thin film technology [13].
The three major thin film photovoltaic technologies in the
market are amorphous silicon, CIGS (Copper Indium Gallium
and Selenide) and CdTe (Cadmium Telluride).
1) Amorphous silicon technology: The amorphous silicon
technology is the oldest technology in the market of thin film.
The amorphous silicon cells are used as a reliable source of
energy in electronic equipements such as watches, calculators
and others. Among the thin films, the amophous silicon is the
one that uses the least amount of material and is less toxic to
the producer and consumer [28] [29].
Amorphous silicon is a non-crystalline form of silicon
in disordered structure and has a light absorption rate 40
times higher compared to monocrystalline silicon [30]. This
disordered structure has a high band gap of 1.7 eV [31],
allowing a significant fraction of the light to be absorbed.
However, small amounts of amorphous silicon and pendant
bonds results in short duration of diffusion of minority carriers
and abnormal electrical behavior [28].
Among the three main technologies, amorphous silicon
achieves the lowest efficiency. The efficiency of these cells
reach values of 14% while the modules achieve efficiency
values of 9.8% [7].
2) CdTe (Cadmium Telluride) technology: The CdTe technology is considered one of the most promissing technologies.
It has a bandgap of 1.45 eV, absorbing almost all the visible
light and exhibits great thermodynamic stability [32] [33].
These characteristics allow it to reach a better performance
compared to crystalline silicon technologies under low-light
and high-temperature conditions [34] [35]. However, this
technology is more harmful to the environment, and the raw
material of this technology is not as abundant as silicon.
The manufacturing process of CdTe cells is simpler and
cheaper than crystalline silicon and other thin film cells. About
40% of the thin film products available commercially are from
CdTe [35] [36]. Cells of this technology reach efficiency levels
of 22.1% and their modules reach efficiency values of 18.6%
[7]. In a commercial scale, the efficiency is usually 2-4% lower
[37].
3) CIGS (Copper Indium Gallium Selenium) technologies:
The manufacturing process of the CIGS cells is performed
through vacuum, depositing a thin layer of 2-3 m of copper,
TABLE II
S IMULATION RESULTS OF THE DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGIES OF PHOTOVOLTAIC MODULES
Technology
Manufacturer
Model
Quant.
Power
Un. (Wp)
Power
total (kWp)
Energy
(kWh/Ano)
Monocrystalline
Monocrystalline
Polycrystalline
Polycrystalline
Polycrystalline
Polycrystalline
Half-Cell
Half-Cell
Double Glass
Double Glass
Bifacial
Bifacial
PERC
PERC
HIT
CdTe
a-Si
CIGS
Canadian
Perlight
Canadian
Jinko
JÁ Solar
Perlight
Canadian
JÁ Solar
Canadian
JÁ Solar
Jinko
Longi
Jinko
Canadian
Panasonic
First Solar
NexPower
Global Solar
CS6U-330M 1500V
PLM-330M-72
CS6U-330P 1500V
JKM330P-72
JAP72S01-330/SC
PLM-330P-72
CS3U-330P 1500V
JAP72S03-330/SC
CS6X-330P-FG
JAP72D00-330/SC
Eagle 72 370Wp
LR6-72BP 370M
Eagle HC60M 320Wp
CS3U-360MS 1500V
VBHN330SJ47
FS-4115-3
NT-160AG
PowerFLEX-1BTM-300
270
270
270
270
270
270
243
243
270
270
243
216
297
243
288
624
336
144
330
330
330
330
330
330
330
330
330
330
370
370
320
360
330
115
160
300
89,1
89,1
89,1
89,1
89,1
89,1
80,19
80,19
89,1
89,1
89,91
79,92
95,04
87,48
95,04
71,76
53,76
43,2
130104,00
127346,00
131017,00
130239,00
129776,00
126492,00
118353,00
117798,00
130784,00
129631,00
132486,00
119571,00
139384,00
128994,00
144741,00
107963,00
77675,00
60494,00
indium, gallium and selenium on a glass or plastic holder along
with electrodes on the front and backside. This deposition can
be done on rigid substrates or on flexible substrates, allowing
new fields of application and lower manufacturing costs. The
band gap of this technology is proportional to the gallium
content, ranging from 1.04 eV (pure CuInSe2 ) to 1.68 eV
(pure CuGaSe2 ). Higher efficiency cells usually have a band
gap of approximately 1.1 to 1.24 eV [38]. Among the major
thin-film technologies, CIGS shows the highest potential,
achieving efficiencies comparable to polycrystalline silicon
cells. [39]. CIGS cells have already registered efficiency values
of 22.9% and their modules presented efficiency values of
19.2% [7].
III. D ESCRIPTION OF SIMULATIONS AND RESULTS
In order to compare the different types of technology,
simulations were performed using the software PV*SOL [40].
The purpose of the simulation was to compare the performance
of different modules available commercially and mentioned in
this article.
The simulations were performed considering the climatic
data of Belém-PA, Brazil, as a survey performed by the Comerc Solar Index considering strategic factors (solar irradiance,
tax value and energy tariff of the location) concluded that it
is considered the best city for installation of new photovoltaic
systems in Brazil [41]. In Belém-PA, the annual sum of the
global irradiation is 1846 kWh/m2 and the annual average of
the temperature is 26.9 o C [40].
Initially, a scenario of a building of 20 meters width 30
meters lenght was created. This building served as the basis
for the simulation of all the technologies. For the simulations it
was considered installations on slab, in which all the systems
were directed to the North (0o orientation), with a slope of
10o and without any shading.
For the analysis of the results, some factors were considered,
such as the total area, generation by area (GA); specific annual
yield (Yf), which represents the relation between the energy
Module
area
(m2 )
1,944
1,940
1,944
1,940
1,942
1,940
1,984
1,982
1,952
1,952
1,962
1,969
1,652
1,984
1,062
0,720
1,540
2,825
Total
area
(m2 )
525,00
523,90
525,00
523,90
524,44
523,80
482,11
481,63
527,11
527,11
476,81
425,32
490,55
482,11
305,99
449,28
517,44
406,81
GA
(kWh/Area)
Yf
(kWh/kWp)
PR (%)
247,82
243,08
249,57
248,60
247,46
241,49
245,49
244,58
248,12
245,93
277,86
281,13
284,14
267,56
473,02
240,30
150,11
148,70
1460,20
1429,25
1470,45
1461,71
1456,52
1419,66
1475,90
1468,99
1467,83
1454,89
1473,54
1496,13
1466,58
1474,55
1522,95
1504,51
1444,85
1400,32
80,40%
78,70%
80,90%
80,4%
80,1%
78,1%
81,20%
80,80%
80,70%
80,10%
79,60%
80,90%
80,80%
81,10%
83,70%
82,80%
79,50%
77,40%
generated and the nominal power of the photovoltaic system;
and the performance ratio (PR) [42].
The simulated modules and their results are shown in Table
II. It is worth note that, modules of the same technology and
power of different manufacturers present different results, this
is due to the quality of the material used and the manufacturing
process.
Another aspect observed is a higher yield of a polycrystalline module compared to a monocrystalline module of the
same manufacturer. This occurs due the fabrication process in
large scale of these technologies present similar efficiencies
and, because polycrystalline technologies have a better use
of the module area, in some cases a better yield is achieved.
When it comes to half-cell modules manufactured from polycrystalline cells, the yield was higher than full-cell modules.
The improvement of the yield occurs due to the reduction of
the resistive losses of the internal connections of the modules.
The double glass modules with polycrystalline cells presented a performance similar to the conventional polycrystalline modules. However, the double glass modules present
better mechanical resistivity; require less area to obtain the
same installed power and a better yield than the conventional
modules. This improvement in yield may vary according to the
albedo level that reaches the backside of the modules. PERC
modules can use a wider range in the radiation spectrum,
producing more energy than the conventional modules using
the same area. However, the HIT modules achieved the highest
energy per area, due to the combination of the advantages of
crystalline and non-crystalline silicon.
Among the thin film technologies, CdTe presented the best
results, followed by amorphous silicon and CIGS, respectively.
Although CIGS already achieved better laboratory efficiencies,
the industrial manufacturing of CdTe is more consolidated than
CIGS, which is still considered a new technology.
IV. C ONCLUSION
The work presented a review on the types of technologies
of photovoltaic modules found in the market, later simulations
of systems was performed using the several technologies in
order to observe their performances. The system with HIT
modules presented the highest value of energy generated and
the smallest area used. This technology is recent in the market
and its cost is high. However, due to its advantages, it is
expected that this technology will have its cost lowered and
stands out in the market.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was supported by the agencies CNPq, CAPES
and ANEEL (CPFL-PA3032).
R EFERENCES
[1] J. L. D. S. Silva, H. S. Moreira, D. D. B. Mesquita, and M. G. Villalva,
“Analysis of Power Optimizers in Photovoltaic Power Plant,” pp. 4–5.
[2] H. J. Moller, “SEMICONDUCTORS FOR SOLAR APPLICATIONS,”
Middle East, vol. 35, pp. 205–418, 1991.
[3] L. Szabó, “The history of using solar energy,” Proceedings - 2017
International Conference on Modern Power Systems, MPS 2017, no.
June 2017, 2017.
[4] A. Blakers, “Development of the PERC Solar Cell,” IEEE Journal of
Photovoltaics, vol. PP, pp. 1–7, 2019.
[5] S.
Power,
“Solar
Power.”
[Online].
Available:
https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/
[6] V. V. Tyagi, N. A. Rahim, N. A. Rahim, and J. A. Selvaraj, “Progress
in solar PV technology: Research and achievement,” Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 20, pp. 443–461, 2013. [Online].
Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.09.028
[7] N. R. E. L. (NREL), “Conversion efficiencies of best research solar
cells worldwide for various photovoltaic technologies since 1976,”
2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.nrel.gov/pv/
[8] M. A. Green, Y. Hishikawa, E. D. Dunlop, D. H. Levi, J. Hohl-Ebinger,
M. Yoshita, and A. W. Ho-Baillie, “Solar cell efficiency tables (Version
53),” Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications, vol. 27,
no. 1, pp. 3–12, 2019.
[9] P. Solar, “Types of Photovoltaic Solar Panel.” [Online]. Available:
ttps://www.portalsolar.com.br/tipos-de-painel-solar-fotovoltaico.html
[10] J. Friedrich, W. V. Ammon, and G. Müller, Czochralski Growth
of Silicon Crystals, second edi ed. Elsevier B.V., 2015. [Online].
Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63303-3.00002-X
[11] “Solar
Cell
Central.”
[Online].
Available:
ttp://solarcellcentral.com/index.html
[12] Thequartzcorp,
“Czochralski
process.”
[Online].
Available:
http://www.thequartzcorp.com/en/blog/2013/08/16/why-the-czochralskiprocess-needs-spruce-pine/
[13] M. G. Villalva, Energia Solar Fotovoltaica - Conceitos e Aplicações,
2015.
[14] P. G. V. Sampaio and M. O. A. González, “Photovoltaic solar energy:
Conceptual framework,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
vol. 74, no. December 2016, pp. 590–601, 2017.
[15] A. Goetzberger, C. Hebling, and H. W. Schock, “Photovoltaic materials,
history, status and outlook,” Materials Science and Engineering R:
Reports, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 1–46, 2003.
[16] I. T. R. for Photovoltaic (ITRPV), “Results 2017 including maturity
report 2018, 9th ed.” 1952. [Online]. Available: http://www.itrpv.net/
[17] T. Tang, C. Gan, Z. Hu, H. Niu, J. Si, and X. Luo, “A Quantitative
Comparison between Double Glass Photovoltaic Modules Using HalfSize Cells and Quarter-Size Cells,” IEEE Journal of Photovoltaics,
vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 1298–1303, 2017.
[18] BrainMarket, “Tecnologia sob medida.” [Online]. Available:
http://www.brainmarket.com.br/noticia/tecnologia-sob-medida
[19] J. Qian, A. Thomson, A. Blakers, and M. Ernst, “Comparison of HalfCell and Full-Cell Module Hotspot-Induced Temperature by Simulation,” IEEE Journal of Photovoltaics, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 834–839, 2018.
[20] Diysolar, “Hyper x 350 watt solaredge home power systems.”
[Online]. Available: http://www.diysolar.com/Products/hyper-x-350watt-solaredge-home-power-systems.htm
[21] J. Tang, C. Ju, R. Lv, X. Zeng, J. Chen, D. Fu, J. N. Jaubert, and
T. Xu, “The Performance of Double Glass Photovoltaic Modules under
Composite Test Conditions,” Energy Procedia, vol. 130, pp. 87–93,
2017. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.09.400
View publication stats
[22] S. Professional, “Bifacial PV Systems.” [Online]. Available: https://solarprofessional.com/articles/design-installation/bifacialpv-systems/page/0/1#.XIgJZihKiUl
[23] TUV, “PV Products Certification; PV Projects quality control; New
emerging Technologies.” [Online]. Available: www.tuv.com
[24] V. Benda, Crystalline Silicon Solar Cell and Module Technology,
2018. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-8114797.00009-9
[25] T. Chakrabarti, A. Jana, A. Khanda, and S. K. Sarkar, “Modeling of
ZnO based HIT Solar Cells with Comparative Analysis,” 2017 IEEE International Conference on Power, Control, Signals and Instrumentation
(ICPCSI), no. i, pp. 2292–2296, 2017.
[26] S. Sundaram, K. Shanks, and H. Upadhyaya, Thin Film Photovoltaics.
Elsevier Inc., 2018. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B9780-12-811479-7/00018-X
[27] J. Vrielink, R. Tiggelaar, J. Gardeniers, and L. Lefferts, “Applicability of
X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy as method to determine thickness and
composition of stacks of metal thin films: a comparison with imaging
and profilometry,” Thin Solid Films, pp. 5273–5281, 2012.
[28] T. D. Lee and A. Ebong, “Thin film solar technologies: A review,” 2015
12th International Conference on High-Capacity Optical Networks and
Enabling/Emerging Technologies, HONET-ICT 2015, pp. 1–10, 2016.
[29] T. D. Lee and A. U. Ebong, “A review of thin film solar cell
technologies and challenges,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, vol. 70, no. December 2016, pp. 1286–1297, 2017. [Online].
Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.028
[30] O. Mah, “Fundamentals of photovoltaic materials,” National Solar
Power Research Institute, pp. 1–10, 1998. [Online]. Available:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle: Fundamentals+of+Photovoltaic+Materials#0
[31] M. Boutchich, J. Alvarez, D. Diouf, P. Roca I Cabarrocas, M. Liao,
I. Masataka, Y. Koide, and J. P. Kleider, “Amorphous silicon diamond
based heterojunctions with high rectification ratio,” Journal of NonCrystalline Solids, vol. 358, no. 17, pp. 2110–2113, 2012. [Online].
Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2011.12.067
[32] B. Ghosh, R. Miles, and M. Carter, “Contacting technology for thin film
CdTe photovoltaic modules,” Electronics Letters, vol. 32, no. 10, p. 932,
2002.
[33] A. Bosio, G. Rosa, and N. Romeo, “Past, present and
future of the thin film CdTe/CdS solar cells,” Solar Energy,
vol. 175, no. January, pp. 31–43, 2018. [Online]. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.01.018
[34] A. H. Munshi, N. Sasidharan, S. Pinkayan, K. L. Barth, W. S.
Sampath, and W. Ongsakul, “Thin-film CdTe photovoltaics – The
technology for utility scale sustainable energy generation,” Solar
Energy, vol. 173, no. August, pp. 511–516, 2018. [Online]. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.07.090
[35] O. O. Ogbomo, E. H. Amalu, N. N. Ekere, and P. O. Olagbegi, “A
review of photovoltaic module technologies for increased performance
in tropical climate,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
vol. 75, no. September 2016, pp. 1225–1238, 2017. [Online]. Available:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.109
[36] A. J. Sangster, “Solar Photovoltaic,” Green Energy and Technology, pp.
145–172, 2014.
[37] N. Boutana, A. Mellit, S. Haddad, A. Rabhi, and A. M. Pavan,
“An explicit I-V model for photovoltaic module technologies,” Energy
Conversion and Management, vol. 138, pp. 400–412, 2017. [Online].
Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.02.016
[38] P. Reinhard, A. Chiril, F. Pianezzi, S. Nishiwaki, S. Buecheler, and A. N.
Tiwari, “High efficiency flexible Cu(In,Ga)Se solar cells,” pp. 79–82.
[39] P. Reinhard, F. Pianezzi, B. Bissig, A. Chirila, P. Blosch, S. Nishiwaki,
S. Buecheler, and A. N. Tiwari, “Cu(In,Ga)Se Thin-Film Solar Cells
and Modules - A Boost in Efficiency Due to Potassium,” IEEE Journal
of Photovoltaics, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 656–663, 2015. [Online]. Available:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=6994825
[40] PV*SOL,
“PV*SOL
premium.”
[Online].
Available:
https://www.valentin-software.com/en/products/photovoltaics/57/pvsolpremium
[41] P. Verde, “Estudo identifica as melhores cidades para receber projetos
em energia solar,” 2018. [Online]. Available: https://goo.gl/2EnnxA
[42] B. Rupnik and O. Westbrook, “Ambient temperature correction of
photovoltaic system performance data,” 2014 IEEE 40th Photovoltaic
Specialist Conference, PVSC 2014, pp. 1973–1977, 2014.