Three-dimensional photovoltaics

Applied Physics Letters

Volumn 96, Issue 7, 2010, Pages

  Myers, Bryan ^a   Bernardi, Marco ^b   Grossman, Jeffrey C ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

3D SOLAR CELLS; 3D STRUCTURE; DESIGN ATTRIBUTES; ENERGY PRODUCTIONS; PHOTOVOLTAIC STRUCTURES; PHOTOVOLTAICS; THREE-DIMENSIONAL (3D); VOLUMETRIC ENERGY;

ENERGY CONVERSION; OPTIMIZATION; PHOTOVOLTAIC EFFECTS; SOLAR ENERGY;

THREE DIMENSIONAL;

EID: 77249170354     PISSN: 00036951     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1063/1.3308490     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. D. Ginley, M. A. Green, and R. Collins, MRS Bull. 0883-7694 33, 355 (2008).
2. R. W. Miles, G. Zoppi, and I. Forbes, Mater. Today 1369-7021 10, 20 (2007). 10.1016/S1369-7021(07)70275-4 (Pubitemid 47552904)
3. A. C. Mayer, S. R. Scully, B. E. Hardin, M. W. Rowell, and M. D. McGehee, Mater. Today 1369-7021 10, 28 (2007). 10.1016/S1369-7021(07)70276-6 (Pubitemid 47552905)
4. M. A. Green, Third Generation Photovoltaics: Advanced Solar Energy Conversion (Springer, Berlin, 2005).
5. G. Conibeer, Mater. Today 1369-7021 10, 42 (2007). 10.1016/S1369-7021(07) 70278-X (Pubitemid 47552907)
6. V. S. Arunachalam and E. L. Fleischer, MRS Bull. 0883-7694 33, 264 (2008).
7. J. Nelson, The Physics of Solar Cells (Imperial College Press, London, 2003).
8. S. H. Park, S. Roy, S. Beaupŕ, S. Cho, N. Coates, J. S. Moon, D. Moses, M. Leclerc, K. Lee, and A. J. Heeger, Nat. Photonics 1749-4885 3, 297 (2009). 10.1038/nphoton.2009.69
9. R. M. Swanson, Prog. Photovoltaics 1062-7995 14, 443 (2006). 10.1002/pip.709
10. D. H. Gracias, J. Tien, T. L. Breen, C. Hsu, and G. M. Whitesides, Science 0036-8075 289, 1170 (2000) 10.1126/science.289.5482.1170; M. Boncheva, S. A. Andreev, L. Mahadevan, A. Winkleman, D. R. Reichman, M. G. Prentiss, S. Whitesides, and G. M. Whitesides, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 0027-8424 102, 3924 (2005). 10.1073/pnas.0500807102
11. V. Fthenakis, Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 1364-0321 13, 2746 (2009). 10.1016/j.rser.2009.05.001
12. For an introduction to the genetic algorithm approach, see D. E. Goldberg, Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and Machine Learning (Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston, 1989).
13. S. Kumara Illinois Genetic Algorithms Laboratory Report No. 2007016, 2007 (unpublished).
14. B. L. Miller and D. E. Goldberg, Evol. Comput. 1063-6560 4, 113 (1996). 10.1162/evco.1996.4.2.113
15. A two-point crossover recombination method was employed, wherein two indices are selected at random in the list of coordinates composing the chromosomes, and then the entire string of coordinates in between is traded between the pair of solutions.
16. I. Reda and A. Andreas, Sol. Energy 0038-092X 76, 577 (2004). (We used the sun trajectory on a summer day in San Francisco for these particular calculations.) 10.1016/j.solener.2003.12.003 (Pubitemid 38345898)
17. The sun was assumed to be a source of parallel rays, and cloud-cover and all light-obstructions (except from other triangles in the structure) were neglected. For simplicity, it is assumed that all transmitted radiation counts toward the generated power, and only one reflection step (from solar cell surfaces) is taken into account. The triangles surfaces were assumed flat in the sense that all reflections were taken to be specular (θrefl = θincid); the opposite extreme, not implemented, would be Lambertian reflection, in which incident radiation scatters isotropically in the hemisphere. The number of ray-traces per cell (i.e., per triangle) was fixed to 100 during most simulations to limit computation time. After optimization, the final reported power values of the structures were evaluated with a larger standard number of ray-traces per cell (10 000), allowing convergence of the calculated energy value to better than 0.01%.
18. In the present work p -polarized light was assumed in the calculations. Extensive studies with unpolarized light are underway and will be discussed separately. Preliminary results suggest that the conclusions are consistent with this study, although unpolarized light leads to increased values of M due to the poorer performance of the flat panel.
19. We chose a typical for the average index of refraction (1.505) for organic active layers that would give R∼4%. The efficiency was set to 6% to simulate the best performance of state-of-the-art polymer solar cells Ref..
20. M. Mitchell, Complexity: A Guided Tour (Oxford University Press, New York, 2009).
21. See for example, P. R. Sharps, U.S. Patent Application No. 20090223554 (2009).