Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-xtvcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-22T16:56:46.499Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Oxygen During Close-Spaced Sublimation of CdTe Solar Cells

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2011

D. H. Rose ,
D. S. Albin ,
R. J. Matson ,
A. B. Swartzlander ,
X. S. Li ,
R. G. Dhere ,
S. Asher ,
F. S. Hasoon  and
P. Sheldon
D. H. Rose
Affiliation:
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO 80401
D. S. Albin
Affiliation:
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO 80401
R. J. Matson
Affiliation:
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO 80401
A. B. Swartzlander
Affiliation:
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO 80401
X. S. Li
Affiliation:
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO 80401
R. G. Dhere
Affiliation:
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO 80401
S. Asher
Affiliation:
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO 80401
F. S. Hasoon
Affiliation:
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO 80401
P. Sheldon
Affiliation:
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO 80401
Get access

Abstract

The presence of oxygen during close-spaced sublimation (CSS) deposition of CdTe has been regarded as necessary for high-efficiency CdS/CdTe solar cells. To date, research has focused on the effect of oxygen on the acceptor density in the CdTe absorber. We find that although oxygen may influence the doping density, a perhaps more significant effect is its influence on nucleation and growth of the film. Oxygen partial pressures of 0 to 24 torr and total pressures of 5 to 45 torr (balance He) have been explored for CSS depositions. We find that increasing the O2 partial pressure increases the density of CdTe nucleation sites, thereby suppressing pinhole formation and likely reducing defects at the junction. However, increasing O2 also tends to decrease grain size and faceting in the films. In addition to influencing the film properties, O2 adversely affects the source material, producing non-uniformly oxidized surfaces that reduce deposition rates and impair device uniformity and run-to-run reproducibility.

We have also determined that the graphite susceptors typically used with CSS deposition convert a portion of the oxygen ambient to CO and CO2 during deposition. The amount converted is highly dependent on the type and age of the graphite susceptor used. The COx byproducts are not efficiently incorporated in the CdTe film and do not influence the deposition as oxygen does. We describe the effect of the changing oxygen partial pressure during the course of deposition. Finally, we report high-efficiency solar cells (12.8% AM 1.5) made without oxygen.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 426: Symposium J – Thin Films for Photovoltaic and Related Device , 1996 , 337
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Tyan, Y.S. and Perez-Albueme, E. A., Proceedings of the 16th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists' Conference, 794–800 (1982).Google Scholar
2. Britt, J. and Ferekides, C., Appl. Phys. Lett., 62 (22), 2851–2852 (1993).Google Scholar
3. Chu, T. and Chu, S., Final Letter Report to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, EAT-3-13159-01-104149, Oct. 1993.Google Scholar
4. Windheim, J., Renaud, I., and Cocivera, M., J. Appl. Phys., 67 (9), 4167–4172 (1990).Google Scholar
5. Birkmire, R. M., McCandless, B. E., and Shafarman, W. N., Solar Cells, 23, 115–126 (1988).Google Scholar
6. Ikegami, S. and Nakano, A., Int. J. Solar Energy, 12, 53–65 (1992).Google Scholar
7. Basol, B. M., Solar Cells, 23, 69–88 (1988).Google Scholar
8. Jordan, J. F. and Albright, S. P., 23, 107–113 (1988).Google Scholar
9. Basol, B. M., Int. J. Solar Energy, 12, 25–35 (1992).Google Scholar
10. Hussain, O. M. and Reddy, P. J., Materials Letters, 10 (1–4), 165–169 (1990).Google Scholar
11. Raychaudhuri, P., J. Appl. Phys, 62 (7), 3025–3028 (1987).Google Scholar
12. Tyan, Y. S., Vazan, F., and Barge, T. S., Proceedings of the 17th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists' Conference, 840–845 (1984).Google Scholar
13. Hsu, M., Jih, R., Lin, P., Ueng, H., Hsu, Y., and Hwang, H., J. Appl. Phys., 59, 6307–9 (1986).Google Scholar
14. Tyan, Y. S., Solar Cells, 23, 19–29 (1988).Google Scholar
15. Tang, C. W. and Vazan, F., J. Appl. Phys., 55, 3886–3888 (1984).Google Scholar
16. McCandless, B., Birkmire, R., Phillips, J., Sixth E. C. P. V. Energy Conference, 826–830 (1985).Google Scholar
17. Chu, T., Chu, S., Ferekides, C., Wu, C., Britt, J., and Wang, C., Proceedings of the 22nd IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists' Conference, 952–956 (1991).Google Scholar
18. Froment, M., Bernard, M. C., Cortes, R., Mokili, B., and Lincot, D., J. Electrochem. Soc., 142, 2642–2649 (1995)Google Scholar
19. Albin, D., Rose, D., Swartzlander, A., Mountinho, H., Hasoon, F., Asher, S., Matson, R., and Sheldon, P., Material Research Society Symp. Proceedings, 410 (1995).Google Scholar
20. Rohatgi, A., Int. J. of Solar Energy, 12 (1–4), 37–49 (1992).Google Scholar
21. Sudharsen, R. and Rohatgi, A., Proceedings of the 21st IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists' Conference, 504–508 (1990).Google Scholar
22. Chu, T. and Chu, S., Int. J. of Solar Energy, 12 (1–4), 121–132 (1992).Google Scholar
23. Ferekides, C. S., Dugan, K., Ceekala, V., Killian, J., Oman, D., Swaminathan, R., and Morel, D. L., Proceedings of the IEEE First World Conference on Photovoltaic Energy Conversion, 99–102 (1994).Google Scholar
24. Al-Jassim, M. M., Hasoon, F. S., Jones, K. M., Keyes, B. M., Matson, R. J., and Moutinho, H. R., Proceedings of the 23rd IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists' Conference, 459–465 (1993).Google Scholar
25. Smith, D. L., Thin Film Deposition, McGraw Hill, New York, 1995, pp. 83–84.Google Scholar
26. Birkmire, R. W., McCandless, B. E., and Hegedus, S. S., Int. J. Solar Energy, 12, 145–154 (1992).Google Scholar
27. Dhere, R. G., Albin, D. S., Rose., D. H. Asher, S. and Sheldon, P., “Intermixing at the CdS/CdTe Interface and Its Effect on the Device Performance,” Proceedings for this symposium (1996).Google Scholar
28. Clemminck, I., Burgelman, M., and Casteleyn, M., and Depuydt, B., Int. J. Solar Energy, 12, 67–78 (1992).Google Scholar