Experiments show dramatic increase in solar cell output

Method for collecting two electrons from each photon could break through theoretical solar-cell efficiency limit

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

CAMBRIDGE, MA — In any conventional silicon-based solar cell, there is an absolute limit on overall efficiency, based partly on the fact that each photon of light can only knock loose a single electron, even if that photon carried twice the energy needed to do so. But now, researchers have demonstrated a method for getting high-energy photons striking silicon to kick out two electrons instead of one, opening the door for a new kind of solar cell with greater efficiency than was thought possible.

While conventional silicon cells have an absolute theoretical maximum efficiency of about 29.1 percent conversion of solar energy, the new approach, developed over the last several years by researchers at MIT and elsewhere, could bust through that limit, potentially adding several percentage points to that maximum output. The results are described today in the journal Nature, in a paper by graduate student Markus Einzinger, professor of chemistry Moungi Bawendi, professor of electrical engineering and computer science Marc Baldo, and eight others at MIT and at Princeton University.

The basic concept behind this new technology has been known for decades, and the first demonstration that the principle could work was carried out by some members of this team six years ago. But actually translating the method into a full, operational silicon solar cell took years of hard work, Baldo says.

That initial demonstration “was a good test platform” to show that the idea could work, explains Daniel Congreve PhD ’15, an alumnus now at the Rowland Institute at Harvard, who was the lead author in that prior report and is a co-author of the new paper. Now, with the new results, “we’ve done what we set out to do” in that project, he says.

The original study demonstrated the production of two electrons from one photon, but it did so in an organic photovoltaic cell, which is less efficient than a silicon solar cell. It turned out that transferring the two electrons from a top collecting layer made of tetracene into the silicon cell “was not straightforward,” Baldo says. Troy Van Voorhis, a professor of chemistry at MIT who was part of that original team, points out that the concept was first proposed back in the 1970s, and says wryly that turning that idea into a practical device “only took 40 years.”

The key to splitting the energy of one photon into two electrons lies in a class of materials that possess “excited states” called excitons, Baldo says: In these excitonic materials, “these packets of energy propagate around like the electrons in a circuit,” but with quite different properties than electrons. “You can use them to change energy — you can cut them in half, you can combine them.” In this case, they were going through a process called singlet exciton fission, which is how the light’s energy gets split into two separate, independently moving packets of energy. The material first absorbs a photon, forming an exciton that rapidly undergoes fission into two excited states, each with half the energy of the original state.

But the tricky part was then coupling that energy over into the silicon, a material that is not excitonic. This coupling had never been accomplished before.

As an intermediate step, the team tried coupling the energy from the excitonic layer into a material called quantum dots. “They’re still excitonic, but they’re inorganic,” Baldo says. “That worked; it worked like a charm,” he says. By understanding the mechanism taking place in that material, he says, “we had no reason to think that silicon wouldn’t work.”

What that work showed, Van Voorhis says, is that the key to these energy transfers lies in the very surface of the material, not in its bulk. “So it was clear that the surface chemistry on silicon was going to be important. That was what was going to determine what kinds of surface states there were.” That focus on the surface chemistry may have been what allowed this team to succeed where others had not, he suggests.

The key was in a thin intermediate layer. “It turns out this tiny, tiny strip of material at the interface between these two systems [the silicon solar cell and the tetracene layer with its excitonic properties] ended up defining everything. It’s why other researchers couldn’t get this process to work, and why we finally did.” It was Einzinger “who finally cracked that nut,” he says, by using a layer of a material called hafnium oxynitride.

The layer is only a few atoms thick, or just 8 angstroms (ten-billionths of a meter), but it acted as a “nice bridge” for the excited states, Baldo says. That finally made it possible for the single high-energy photons to trigger the release of two electrons inside the silicon cell. That produces a doubling of the amount of energy produced by a given amount of sunlight in the blue and green part of the spectrum. Overall, that could produce an increase in the power produced by the solar cell — from a theoretical maximum of 29.1 percent, up to a maximum of about 35 percent.

Actual silicon cells are not yet at their maximum, and neither is the new material, so more development needs to be done, but the crucial step of coupling the two materials efficiently has now been proven. “We still need to optimize the silicon cells for this process,” Baldo says. For one thing, with the new system those cells can be thinner than current versions. Work also needs to be done on stabilizing the materials for durability. Overall, commercial applications are probably still a few years off, the team says.

Other approaches to improving the efficiency of solar cells tend to involve adding another kind of cell, such as a perovskite layer, over the silicon. Baldo says “they’re building one cell on top of another. Fundamentally, we’re making one cell — we’re kind of turbocharging the silicon cell. We’re adding more current into the silicon, as opposed to making two cells.”

The researchers have measured one special property of hafnium oxynitride that helps it transfer the excitonic energy. “We know that hafnium oxynitride generates additional charge at the interface, which reduces losses by a process called electric field passivation. If we can establish better control over this phenomenon, efficiencies may climb even higher.” Einzinger says. So far, no other material they’ve tested can match its properties.

###

The research was supported as part of the MIT Center for Excitonics, funded by the U.S. Department of Energy.

From EurekAlert!

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
183 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rud Istvan
July 7, 2019 6:13 pm

Weighing in belatedly, but with a lot of hard earned solar cell knowledge as a former independent director of an Argonne Labs spinout ‘revolutionary’ solar cell startup. We blew about $5 million.

The single layer P/N junction limit is called the Shockley Quiessner limit. Depending on how calculated, it is 31-32%, not 29.1. So a theoretical improvement to ~35% is neither as great or as valuable as MIT PRs.

The SQ theoretical limit can never be reached because of system overheads like current collector lines. The best single cell (monocrystalline) silicon, using every trick in the book like antireflective coatings, diffraction grating surface…) is about 26%. The panels made from those cells run about 22%. These are the most expensive solar cells until you get to space only multilayer P/N GaAs stuff, which Boeing makes only for deep space probes where cost is no object.

And, a halfnium oxynitride layer only a few atoms thick can only be laid down with present technology using super controlled CVD, which means vacuum processing on small experimental cell scales. Unfortunately, as we found at MOT for FED displays, CVD does not easily scale areally. (We had the worlds largest CVD throw radius machine, custom built, 25 feet, to do 6 inch by 9 inch prototype FED moly spint tip panels (metallic cones inside 1 micron holes). Machine cost $30 million and had to be installed in a custom built wafer fab.) So there is no large volume manufacturing commercial process known.

So this is a great matsci near quantum physics (all quantum dot few atom phenomena are quantum related) PhD thesis, but nothing for the real world of renewable energy stuff. Reminds me of the organic electrolyte ‘rhubarb’ flow cell battery Harvard reported a few years ago. Essay California Dreaming in ebook Blowing Smoke, foreword from Judith Curry. Of course, nothing since.

Dave Yaussy
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 7, 2019 6:18 pm

Thanks Rud. I follow this site for just this sort of clear-eyed analysis

dan no longer in CA
July 7, 2019 6:45 pm

Here’s a link to a site that briefly discusses the various types of cells (Triple Junction GaAs, single junction, mono- and polycrystalline silicon, amorphous cells, organic, etc). There is a nice chart by NREL showing efficiency of the various types of cells since 1975. It’s a good primer, but doesn’t show price or extent of commercial development. https://www.costofsolar.com/most-efficient-solar-panels-which-ones/

Dave Fair
Reply to  dan no longer in CA
July 7, 2019 7:26 pm

Hucksters never reveal costs, Dan.

Steven Mosher
July 7, 2019 8:20 pm

solar versus coal

https://www.businessinsider.com/solar-power-cost-decrease-2018-5

In the end the opinions of WUWT readers dont matter.

nobody is building new coal in the USA and old plants are closing

Dave Fair
Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 7, 2019 9:59 pm

Another damned solar hype piece, Mr. Mosher. What is the cost of the lack of nighttime solar generation? Per MWh costs are meaningless unless the energy is constantly available.

Steven Mosher
Reply to  Dave Fair
July 8, 2019 7:02 am

“Per MWh costs are meaningless unless the energy is constantly available.”

Huh, not meaningless to my customers. they love cheap solar.

This is really simple. the cost of solar is coming down and will continue to come down.
20% per doubling of production capacity.

in the USA coal is dead. nobody is building new plants. old plants cant get re licenced.

Mark Broderick
Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 8, 2019 8:31 am

Sorry Moshy, you’ve been Trumped….

Dave Fair
Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 8, 2019 9:49 am

“Huh, not meaningless to my customers. they love cheap solar.” Mr. Mosher, have you gone from hustling cheap Chinese Bitcoin-mining machines to hustling solar power? Are you now praising solar power now the way you praised Bitcoins in the past for pecuniary reasons? That causes me to suspect your motives when you opine on controversial subjects and reference particular analyses (actually sales jobs).

As I have pointed out in the past, I installed solar on my rooftop because the other Nevada Energy customers in particular and taxpayers in general are paying for it. Is your customers’ love of cheap solar due to taxpayer and utility ratepayer subsidies? [Note: My rooftop solar is also a hedge against anticipated large Nevada Energy rate increases due to insane “renewables” mandate-laws and subsidies.]

Your customers’ cheap solar is only available because they don’t have to directly pay for the other energy production sources in the electrical system at night; without that support subsidy your customers wouldn’t be so happy. Ultimately, your customers don’t pay for the added electric transmission costs to integrate their far-flung solar power production sites. [That is, unless you are now hustling rooftop solar and not the laughable “pay for solar in your power bill” while receiving electrical energy produced from a myriad of sources.]

Please source your “20% per doubling of production capacity” cost decreases for FUTURE industrial solar installations. We know that in the past taxpayer and ratepayer subsidies for that unnecessary and immature technology engendered economies of scale. Are similar future economies of scale reasonably anticipated in what is now a mature technology? Or are you just blowing smoke to get more of your “customers” to buy your product.

Mr. Mosher, I didn’t say anything about your praising Bitcoins while making a profit off them because I believe it is up to individuals whether to make speculative investments. Now, however, you are hustling a product that actually harms others that are not part of the transaction. The harm to such others comes from the requirement that they must pay to support the transaction without their knowledge or acceptance. Socialism at its best.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 8, 2019 6:46 am

There are hundreds of new coal plants being built in Asia. US plants are closing and/or switching to NatGas, because it is Cheaper! Mosh, as usual, you leave out The Rest Of The Story…

MarkW
Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 8, 2019 7:28 am

Once again Steve is assuming that any trend he approves of will continue indefinitely.
At present Nat Gas is cheaper than coal. Switching from coal to nat gas for power plants is increasing demand for nat gas and decreasing demand for coal, causing nat gas to go up in price and coal to go down.

Eventually the two will come back into equilibrium, perhaps the next technological break through will be some method to reduce the cost of mining coal.

July 7, 2019 8:55 pm

Tetracene? Excitons? umm, what???

July 8, 2019 1:21 am

The advances made by ingenious engineers and scientists during wars are well documented. I view this as the peacetime equivalent. I don’t really care for the solar panel application but more for the extended possibilities that this type of research brings – a sort of Graphene on steroids. All strength to this and other teams like them.

Dave Fair
Reply to  AngryScotonFraggleRock
July 8, 2019 10:08 am

As long as they keep it in the lab and don’t become activists.

The Voice Of Truth
July 8, 2019 2:49 am

It’s funny how stupid all the deniers will look in 10 years from now …
It will be fun to throw mud at them ..

Steven Mosher
Reply to  The Voice Of Truth
July 8, 2019 7:05 am

you have to dig them up first, booker just croaked

MarkW
Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 8, 2019 7:30 am

Low class, but expected for a troll

Mark Broderick
Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 8, 2019 8:34 am

Wow, Mosh hits rock bottom…Sales must be down this month….

Dave Fair
Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 8, 2019 10:13 am

“you have to dig them up first, booker just croaked” You are a nasty one, aren’t you Mr. Mosher?

Reply to  The Voice Of Truth
July 8, 2019 9:43 am

Especially, The Voice Of Truth, when we find you have ‘missed the mark’ too. Witness a prototype below in operation – “Scale up Testing of Spherical SunCell® Hydrino Reactor”

Dave Fair
Reply to  The Voice Of Truth
July 8, 2019 10:10 am

“The Voice Of Truth” It is a true gift to be able to tell truth 10 years from now.

MarkW
July 8, 2019 7:08 am

The headline is mis-leading. With this device, UV photons are capable of knocking loose two electrons. Lower energy photons still only knock lose one electron. UV is a pretty small percentage of the total energy in a beam of sunlight.

Jonthetechnologist
July 8, 2019 9:13 am

Alvin Marks – Lumiloid 1986
Inventor of Polarized Films (sunglasses etc.)
Refind his polarizing films using different compounds and much finer lines for more than 80% efficient solar cell. Look for video. This development has been buried by someone located in Georgia,

Reply to  Jonthetechnologist
July 8, 2019 9:38 am

Edwin H. Land – inventor of polarizing filters and the like predating Marks –

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_H._Land

Kevin Baikie
July 8, 2019 1:40 pm

I agree the potential benefit for photovoltaic solar panels is minimal as a slight increase in efficiency at a much greater cost sounds insignificant.Rather, I see the potential for radioactive ion power generation. I foresee portable power sources which derive their energy from Alpha particle emitters and photovoltaic cells.

Tom Schaefer
Reply to  Kevin Baikie
July 9, 2019 8:12 am

I’m not sure alpha particles would stimulate photovoltaic cells (probably degrade them over some short time), but it is an interesting question if the energy of charged particles from nuclear fission of fusion could be converted to electricity directly without having to heat a substrate, and then use the heat to drive a cycle.

Reply to  Kevin Baikie
July 9, 2019 9:00 am

re: “Rather, I see the potential for radioactive ion power generation. ”

How about power generation using MHD? MHD – Magnetohydrodynamic power generation, using a stream of plasma from a source routed up through the ‘collecting electrodes?

Here is a brief demo of room-temperature liquid metal GaInSn alloy mechanically pumped through a magnetic field and the electrically conductive flow results in the generation of electrical power at two opposing electrodes that are transverse to both the flow and magnetic field direction. Note: This demo does not include the plasma source, which is adapted from the photo-voltaic SunCell reactor previously demonstrated.

“Magnetohydrodynamic Electric Power Generation Demonstration”

July 15, 2019 1:27 am

What will the cell efficiency now be at night?