Professional Documents
Culture Documents
8% Efficiency by
Exceeding the Ray Optics Limit
Jesper Wallentin et al.
Science 339, 1057 (2013);
DOI: 10.1126/science.1230969
If you wish to distribute this article to others, you can order high-quality copies for your
colleagues, clients, or customers by clicking here.
Science (print ISSN 0036-8075; online ISSN 1095-9203) is published weekly, except the last week in December, by the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1200 New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20005. Copyright
2013 by the American Association for the Advancement of Science; all rights reserved. The title Science is a
registered trademark of AAAS.
REPORTS
between the arrival times of electrons at a beam
splitter is a signature of two-particle interference,
which demonstrates the possibility of generating
coherent and indistinguishable single-electron
wave packets with independent sources. It provides the possibility of controlled manipulation
of single-electron states in quantum conductors,
with applications in quantum information processing, but could also be used to fully reconstruct
the wave function of a single electron (24, 30)
and thus quantitatively address the propagation
of a single excitation propagating in a complex
environment.
References and Notes
1. Y. Ji et al., Nature 422, 415 (2003).
2. P. Roulleau et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 126802
(2008).
3. M. Yamamoto et al., Nat. Nanotechnol. 7, 247
(2012).
4. Y. Blanter, M. Bttiker, Phys. Rep. 336, 1 (2000).
1
Solid State Physics, Lund University, Box 118, 22100 Lund,
Sweden. 2Sol Voltaics AB, Ideon Science Park, Scheelevgen
17, 22370 Lund, Sweden. 3Fraunhofer ISE, Heidenhofstrasse 2,
D-79110 Freiburg, Germany. 4University of Kassel, Wilhelmshoeher
Allee 71, 34121, Kassel, Germany. 5Key Laboratory for the Physics and Chemistry of Nanodevices and Department of Electronics,
Peking University, Beijing 100871, China.
www.sciencemag.org
SCIENCE
VOL 339
1 MARCH 2013
1057
REPORTS
(1000 W/m2) illumination, measured in ambient
air at the Fraunhofer ISE CalLab reference setup,
our best cell (from sample A) shows a conversion
efficiency h = 13.8% and a photocurrent density
Jsc = 24.6 mA/cm2. Because our calculation of
Jsc accounts for the full (unmetalized) cell area
rather than the NW surface coverage only, it can
be compared with that of the best reported planar InP cell [Jsc = 29.5 mA/cm2 (15, 16)] and the
theoretical limit of 34.5 mA/cm2 [assuming that
each incident photon with energy above the InP
band gap generates one electron-hole pair (19)].
Thus, our cell reaches 83% of the best reported
planar Jsc despite covering only 12% of the surface area. Our axially defined NW solar cell outperforms similar cells based on core-shell NWs
with a surface coverage of 27% (9), as well as several other next-generation PVarchitectures (Table 1).
Our results demonstrate that ray optics is not
appropriate for describing the interaction of light
with these subwavelength structures, because the
maximum Jsc in the ray optics picture, 4.2 mA/cm2
(12% of the theoretical limit, 34.5 mA/cm2), is
almost six times lower than the Jsc of our best
cell. Alternatively, a hypothetical calculation on
the single-NW level, using the NW cross-sectional
area, would give a physically impossible efficiency above 100%. Thus, light that would travel between the NWs in a ray optics description was
absorbed efficiently in the experimental cell.
To more accurately study the absorption of
light in the NW solar cell, we used full 3D electro-
Fig. 1. Characterization of NW-array solar cells: (A) 0 and 30 (inset) tilt scanning electron microscopy (SEM)
images of as-grown NWs with a surface coverage of 12%. (B) SEM image of processed NWs. The superimposed
schematics illustrate the silicon oxide (SiOx, blue), TCO (red), and the p-i-n doping layers in the NWs. (C) Optical
microscope image of NW solar cells. The dashed red line highlights the border of a 1-mm-by-1-mm cell. (Inset)
A sample with four-by-seven cells. (D) The 1-sun J-V curve for the highest-efficiency cell (sample A).
Table 1. A comparison of the performance of InP PV architectures, as well as reported efficiencies of selected next-generation PV architectures, under
1-sun illumination. The listed devices show variation in cell area and measurement conditions.
1058
Jsc (mA/cm2)
Voc (V)
12
11
100
27
100
100
100
5
5
100
14
24.6
18.2
29.5
13.7
17.66
10.08
20.1
0.779
0.906
0.878
0.43
0.935
1.53
0.605
72.4
78.6
85.4
57
74
68.5
58
13.8
13.0
22.1
3.37
12.3
10.6
7.0
1 MARCH 2013
VOL 339
SCIENCE
www.sciencemag.org
REPORTS
Fig. 2. Absorption in NW solar cells (A) Measured EQE of cells from samples
A (180-nm diameter) and D (130 nm), with the simulated EQE of sample A
assuming that all carriers generated in the whole NW (including the top
n-segment) contribute to Jsc. (B) Simulated absorbed light as a fraction of
the solar spectrum above the InP band gap and calculated Jsc versus NW
diameter. Different optical losses are also shown (fig. S2). The markers indicate the experimentally measured average Jsc of samples A, B, C, and D
(1-, 3-, 6-, and 3-min n-segment growth times, respectively).
Fig. 3. Solar cell performance dependence on top n-segment length. (A) Simulated optical generation rate
of electron-hole pairs in the y-z cross section of sample A for x polarized incident light (19). (B) Measured and
simulated Jsc versus n-segment growth time (19). The error bars are one standard deviation. (C) Measured EQE
of cells from samples A (n-segment growth time, 1 min), B (3 min), and C (6 min). (D) Simulated EQE of
samples A (60-nm n-segment length), B (180 nm), and C (360 nm), together with the simulated EQE for
sample A without losses (dashed line).
than the increase in diameter from 130 to 180 nm.
With a 30-nm n-segment, the photocurrent was
reduced, possibly because some slightly shorter
NWs were not properly contacted.
To understand these experimental findings,
we expanded our purely optical model by assuming that all carriers generated in the n-region
are lost and calculated the resulting Jsc (Fig. 3B)
www.sciencemag.org
SCIENCE
VOL 339
1 MARCH 2013
1059
REPORTS
Fig. 4. Characterization of cell
from sample E under concentrated
illumination.
A
1060
1 MARCH 2013
VOL 339
SCIENCE
Supplementary Materials
www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/science.1230969/DC1
Materials and Methods
Figs. S1 to S3
Table S1
References (2933)
1 October 2012; accepted 17 December 2012
Published online 17 January 2013;
10.1126/science.1230969
www.sciencemag.org