Comment

www.advenergymat.de

Comment on “Introduction of a Novel Figure of Merit for

the Assessment of Transparent Conductive Electrodes in
Photovoltaics: Exact and Approximate Form”
Christopher P. Muzzillo

λgap
Anand et al. introduce an implicit equation for transparent conductive JSC,TCE = q ⋅ ∫ AM 1.5G ( λ ) ⋅ TTCE ( λ ) ⋅ d λ (4)
0

electrode (TCE) merit in photovoltaics (PV) by lumping series resistance in

λ gap
with the diode. However, an explicit equation has been previously derived by J 0,TCE = q ⋅ ∫ BB300K ( λ ) ⋅ TTCE ( λ ) ⋅ d λ (5)
0
lumping series resistance external to the diode. For TCEs of practical interest
for PV, the choice of where to lump series resistance does not affect merit, so   q ⋅ (V + J ⋅ R TCE ⋅ A )  
external lumping is preferred. On the other hand, monolith deadspace, metal J = JSC,TCE − J 0,TCE ⋅  exp   − 1 (6)
  kB ⋅ (300 K )  
grid shadowing, and grid resistance shift TCE merit away from the figure of
merit behavior published by Anand et al. Here, q is the elementary charge, λgap
is the band gap wavelength, AM1.5G(λ)
is the wavelength-dependent AM1.5G
spectral irradiance, BB300K(λ) is the
­
1. Where to Lump Series Resistance blackbody radiation photon flux density at 300 K, and kB is the
Boltzmann constant. Anand et al. compute their exact FOM
Anand et al. recently published a figure of merit (FOM) for (ϕAnand) by finding the maximum power (MP) density from
transparent conductive electrode (TCE) performance in solar Equation (6) (PMP = JMP · VMP) and dividing it by the same
cells.[1] Their FOM uses a detailed balance calculation for max- power density, except calculated at a wavelength-independent
imum power conversion efficiency of a solar cell with a given TTCE of 1 and Rsh,TCE of 10−4 Ω sq−1
band gap (Egap) absorbing the air mass 1.5 global (AM1.5G)
spectrum. They assume that series resistance in the TCE PMP ( λgap ; TTCE ( λ ) ; Rsh,TCE ; L )
φAnand = (7)
(RTCE) is[2,3] PMP ( λgap ; TTCE = 1; Rsh,TCE = 10 −4 Ω sq −1 ; L )

Rsh,TCE ⋅ L2 In other words, the approach of Anand et al. is to add the

R TCE = (1)
3⋅ A TCE series resistance into the one-diode model. The depend-
ence of their exact, implicit FOM (ϕAnand) on Rsh,TCE is repro-
Here, Rsh,TCE is the sheet resistance of the TCE, A is the cell duced in Figure 2 for a band gap of 1100 nm and a wavelength-
area, and L is the cell length (see schematic in Figure 1a). They independent TTCE,avg of 0.9, which is defined as[4]
add RTCE to the ideal diode equation, which is implicit and
λgap
solved iteratively. Finally, they scale the detailed balance limit AM 1.5G ( λ ) ⋅ TTCE ( λ ) ⋅ dλ
short-circuit current density (JSC,DB) and dark saturation current TTCE,avg =
∫ 0
(8)
λgap
density (J0,DB) by the wavelength-dependent transmittance spec- ∫ AM 1.5G ( λ ) ⋅ dλ
0
trum of the TCE (TTCE(λ)) to arrive at current densities for the
diode equation (JSC,TCE and J0,TCE) Anand et al. also define an approximate FOM (ϕAnand,approx)
that fits the exact form (ϕAnand) well at high and low Rsh,TCE
λgap
JSC,DB = q ⋅ ∫ AM 1.5G ( λ ) ⋅ d λ (2)
0
 3 ⋅VOC,DB
 TTCE,avg , Rsh,TCE <
λgap  4 ⋅ L2 ⋅ TTCE,avg ⋅ JSC,DB ⋅ FFDB
J 0,DB = q ⋅ ∫ BB300K ( λ ) ⋅ d λ (3) φAnand,approx = (9)
3 ⋅VOC,DB 3 ⋅VOC,DB
0  , Rsh,TCE >
 4·Rsh,TCE ⋅ L ⋅ JSC,DB ⋅ FFDB 4 ⋅ L ⋅ TTCE,avg ⋅ JSC,DB ⋅ FFDB
2 2

C. P. Muzzillo
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Here, VOC,DB and FFDB are the detailed balance open-cir-
15013 Denver W Pkwy cuit voltage and fill factor, respectively. While Equation (9) is
Golden, CO 80401, USA explicit, it does not match ϕAnand near the piecewise transition
E-mail: christopher.muzzillo@nrel.gov (Figure 2).
The ORCID identification number(s) for the author(s) of this article On the other hand, previous work has shown that lumping
can be found under https://doi.org/10.1002/aenm.202103119.
series resistance externally yields an exact, explicit equation for
DOI: 10.1002/aenm.202103119 TCE merit.[5–7] For example, a uniform TCE applied to a solar

Adv. Energy Mater. 2022, 12, 2103119 2103119 (1 of 6) © Published 2022. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA
 16146840, 2022, 23, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aenm.202103119 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [07/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.advenergymat.de

Figure 1. Schematic showing the architecture and dimensions of a) the uncontacted TCE of ϕAnand and FOMTCE, b) the TCE with monolith deadspace
of FOMTCE,mono, and c) the TCE with monoliths and a grid of FOMTCE,mono,grid. Cell length (L), deadspace (d), grid metal height (hmetal), grid wire width
(w), and grid wire spacing (s) are defined.

cell operating at its MP point with current density (JMP) and
voltage (VMP) would reduce its current and voltage to JMP,TCE
and VMP,TCE
J MP,TCE = J MP ⋅ TTCE,avg (10)
Rsh,TCE ⋅ L2 ⋅ J MP
VMP,TCE = VMP − R TCE ⋅ A ⋅ J MP = VMP − (11)
3
Equations (10) and (11) assume that JMP,TCE is only affected
by TTCE,avg and VMP,TCE is only affected by RTCE.[8] The solution
for an FOM is then
Figure 2. Figures of merit versus TCE sheet resistance (Rsh,TCE):
Anand et al. exact FOM (ϕAnand; black), Anand et al. approximate FOM
(ϕAnand,approx; gray dashed), and FOMTCE (teal). Calculations use L = 0.5 cm,
TTCE,avg = 0.9, a band gap of 1100 nm for ϕAnand, JSC,DB = 43.52 mA cm−2,
VOC,DB = 883.2 mV, FFDB = 0.8705 for ϕAnand,approx, and JMP,DB = 42.15 mA cm−2
and VMP,DB = 793.9 mV for FOMTCE.
J MP,TCE ⋅VMP,TCE  Rsh,TCE ⋅ L2 ⋅ J MP 
FOM TCE = = TTCE,avg ⋅  1 −  (12)
J MP ⋅VMP  3 ⋅VMP
Equation (12) itself has not been previously published, but its
series resistance dependence was first evaluated at JSC/VOC in
1981,[9] and since then similar forms have been used to assess
transparent conductor merit: Jacobs et al.’s “efficiency factor”
(called FOMTCE in this Comment) simplifies to Equation (12)
for an interconnection width of 0.[5] Rowell and McGehee addi-
tionally used the empirical 0.38JSC/VOC and considered voltage
effects on JMP.[7] Equation (12) is shown as a function of Rsh,TCE
in Figure 2. FOMTCE and ϕAnand are very similar for high perfor-
mance TCEs, but they diverge for TCEs with high Rsh,TCE.
Many authors have used analytical and numerical methods
to analyze how distributed series resistance affects PV perfor-
mance.[3,10] However, these models require time, expertise, and
specific knowledge of the materials and architecture, making
series resistance lumping an attractive general approach
for screening TCE materials. Koishiyev and Sites modeled the
effect of RTCE on FF for Cu(In,Ga)Se2 (CIGS) and amorphous
silicon (a-Si) by simulating distributed series resistance.[3] To
test the accuracy of the lumped series resistance approaches,
Figure 3 compares the normalized FF (FF/FF0) literature data to
ϕAnand and FOMTCE. For ϕAnand, the band gap energy (Egap) was
chosen so that JSC,DB/VOC,DB was equal to the literature micro-
cell JSC/VOC (0.05406 Ω−1 cm−2 and 0.003720 Ω−1 cm−2 for CIGS
and a-Si, respectively), and the corresponding JMP,DB/VMP,DB
were used for the FOMTCE calculations. Figure 3 shows that
ϕAnand and FOMTCE are almost indistinguishable, and both
show excellent fit to the data. In conclusion, for reasonable
FOM values (>0.6), both approaches to lumping series resist-
ance yield equivalent results, although external lumping has
the advantage of an explicit equation.
The approach used by Anand et al. and the one shown here
yield similar results because they both approximate the effect of
adding a TCE with Rsh,TCE and TTCE(λ) to an arbitrary solar cell

Adv. Energy Mater. 2022, 12, 2103119 2103119 (2 of 6) © Published 2022. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA
 16146840, 2022, 23, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aenm.202103119 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [07/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.advenergymat.de

Figure 3. Simulated results from the literature for distributed series resistance’s effect on normalized FF (FF/FF0) for a) CIGS (JSC/VOC = 0.05406 Ω−1 cm−2)
and b) a-Si (JSC/VOC = 0.003720 Ω−1 cm−2), compared with ϕAnand and FOMTCE. For CIGS, ϕAnand uses Egap = 1.070 eV (JSC,DB/VOC,DB = 0.05406 Ω−1 cm−2)
and FOMTCE uses the corresponding MP values for Egap = 1.070 eV (JMP,DB/VMP,DB = 0.05842 Ω−1 cm−2). For a-Si, ϕAnand uses Egap = 2.387 eV (JSC,DB/VOC,DB =
0.003720 Ω−1 cm−2) and FOMTCE uses the corresponding MP values for Eg = 2.387 eV (JMP,DB/VMP,DB = 0.003882 Ω−1 cm−2).

harvesting AM1.5G sunlight. Although it is named “exact” and
uses a detailed balance, ϕAnand is still an approximation because
the exact distributed series resistance must be simulated.[3,10]
Whereas the derivation of ϕAnand starts from inside the solar
cell and FOMTCE starts from outside, they end with similar
functions: the reciprocal of the limiting value of ϕAnand,approx
(4Rsh,TCE ⋅ L2 ⋅ JSC,DB ⋅ FFDB ⋅ 3−1 ⋅VOC,DB
−1
) closely resembles the
dimensionless series resistance[9] that appears in FOMTCE
(Rsh,TCE ⋅ L2 ⋅ J MP ⋅ 3−1 ⋅VMP
−1
).
The sensitivity of ϕAnand and FOMTCE to changes in TTCE,avg
and Rsh,TCE is shown in Figure 4. A 1% change to TTCE,avg and a
25% change to Rsh,TCE both shift merit by ≈1%, while switching
where series resistance is lumped (from ϕAnand to FOMTCE)
only shifts merit by 0.4%. Figure 4 also shows that evaluating
FOMTCE at JSC/VOC instead of the less commonly available
JMP/VMP only shifts merit by 0.3%. Therefore, when analyzing
more of an effect than where series resistance is lumped or
which J/V ratio is used.
ϕAnand uses a single nominal detailed balance band gap, whereas
FOMTCE can readily use experimental JMP and VMP values. For
instance, a reference solar cell with maximum power current den-
sity JMP,ref and a TCE with transmittance TTCE,ref(λ) can be used to
predict the current density that same reference cell would have if it
were fabricated with a new TCE of transmittance TTCE(λ)
λgap
J MP,TCE = J MP,ref + q ⋅ ∫ AM1.5G ( λ ) ⋅ (T ( λ ) − T
0
TCE TCE,ref ( λ )) ⋅ dλ (13a)
If the internal quantum efficiency of the reference cell is
known (QEint,ref ), then a more accurate form of Equation (13a) is
∞

J MP,TCE = J MP,ref + q ⋅ ∫QEint,ref ⋅ AM 1.5G ( λ ) ⋅ (TTCE ( λ ) − TTCE,ref ( λ )) ⋅ dλ (13b)

TCE merit, the experimental error in TTCE,avg and Rsh,TCE has 0

Figure 4. Sensitivity analysis considering how TTCE,avg ± 1% and Rsh,TCE ± 25% change ϕAnand, FOMTCE evaluated at JMP/VMP, and FOMTCE evaluated at
JSC/VOC. Calculations use L = 0.5 cm, TTCE,avg = 0.9, Rsh,TCE = 10 Ω sq−1, a band gap of 1100 nm for ϕAnand, JSC,DB = 43.52 mA cm−2, VOC,DB = 883.2 mV,
JMP,DB = 42.15 mA cm−2, and VMP,DB = 793.9 mV for FOMTCE.

Adv. Energy Mater. 2022, 12, 2103119 2103119 (3 of 6) © Published 2022. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA

www.advancedsciencenews.com
Figure 5. Figures of merit versus cell length (L): Anand et al. exact FOM
(ϕAnand; black), FOMTCE (teal), FOMTCE,mono (blue dashed), FOMTCE,grid
(orange), and FOMTCE,mono,grid (pink dashed). A band gap of 1100 nm was
used for ϕAnand, corresponding to JMP,DB = 42.15 mA cm−2 and VMP,DB =
793.9 mV for the other models. Calculations use L = 0.5 cm, TTCE,avg = 0.9,
d = 250 µm, ρmetal = 10−5 Ω cm, w = 56 µm, and hmetal = 13 µm.
Equation (13) allows current density losses to be referred
to experimental results for TCEs of arbitrary thickness using
Fresnel calculations.[11] Moreover, experimental T TCE(λ) and
T TCE,ref(λ) data from glass/TCE structures can be used, pro-
vided the corresponding experimental JMP,ref is known. Sim-
ilar to FOMTCE, ϕAnand can also be adapted to experimental
cells using two band gaps: A spectral band gap for the TTCE,avg
integral and a JSC/VOC-matching band gap for the JSC,DB and
J0,DB integrals. In summary, FOMTCE and ϕAnand yield practi-
cally identical TCE merit for detailed balance solar cells, but
FOMTCE is explicit.
2. TCE Merit Is Not Universal because It Depends
on Module Architecture
Anand et al. consider monolithically integrated modules
(Figure S1, Supporting Information[1]) with cell lengths of L =
0.5 cm. However, they do not consider the optical deadspace
of real monoliths, so their cells cannot be stacked side by side
to form a module and their results do not scale to arbitrary
areas. Real monoliths have optical deadspace, d (=250 µm in
typical modules;[12] see Figure 1b). The transmittance of the
Table 1. Comparison of TCE merit for TCEs with transmittance spectra and sheet resistance values from the literature.[1]
TCEa) Rsh,TCE [Ω sq−1] TTCE,avg ϕAnand
ITO 10 0.859 0.846
PEDOT:PSS + H2SO4 46.1 0.874 0.809
Graphene/PEDOT:PSS/ZnO 230 0.867 0.555
C60-surfactant/Ag 1.7 0.176 0.180
a)An ideal absorber harvesting 350–800 nm was used for ϕ
Anand, corresponding to JMP,DB = 26.32 mA cm and VMP,DB = 1178 mV for the other models. Calculations use L =
0.5 cm, d = 250 µm, ρmetal = 10−5 Ω cm, w = 56 µm, and hmetal = 13 µm.
Adv. Energy Mater. 2022, 12, 2103119 2103119 (4 of 6) © Published 2022. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA
16146840, 2022, 23, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aenm.202103119 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [07/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
www.advenergymat.de
monoliths is then Tmono = L/(L + d) ), which reduces current
density to[5,7]
J MP ⋅ TTCE,avg ⋅ L
J MP,TCE,mono = J MP ⋅ TTCE,avg ⋅ Tmono = (14)
L+d
TTCE,avg ⋅ L  Rsh,TCE ⋅ L2 ⋅ J MP 
FOM TCE,mono =  1−  (15)
L+d  3 ⋅VMP
Equation (15) assumes that monoliths reduce current den-
sity but not voltage. The impacts of monolith contact resistance
and shunt conductance can additionally be computed[11] using
the previously reported functions for FF.[13] Figure 5 shows
that for T TCE,avg = 0.9 and Rsh,TCE = 10 Ω sq−1, FOMTCE,mono has
an optimal L of 0.4 cm, which is close to the L used in real
thin-film modules.[12] On the other hand, FOMTCE and ϕAnand
give the misleading impression that smaller L are always
better.
In practice, modules are fabricated with the optimal L. At
a given TTCE,avg, d, Rsh,TCE, JMP and VMP, FOMTCE,mono can be
numerically maximized with respect to L to yield another figure
of merit with more practical relevance, FOMTCE,mono,opt. The
merit of TCEs with transmittance spectra (TTCE(350–800 nm))
and Rsh,TCE from the literature is computed in Table 1. As
expected, there is little difference between ϕAnand and FOMTCE
in Table 1. However, accounting for realistic monolith dead-
space in FOMTCE,mono reveals that ϕAnand overestimates merit
for all TCEs. On the other hand, for graphene/poly(3,4-ethyl-
enedioxy-thiophene) poly(styrene sulfonate) (PEDOT:PSS)/
ZnO with Rsh,TCE = 230 Ω sq−1, ϕAnand underestimates merit
relative to FOMTCE,mono,opt and FOMTCE,mono,grid,opt. Evaluating at
the optimal cell length (FOMTCE,mono,opt) reveals that TCEs with
high Rsh,TCE (PEDOT:PSS + H2SO4 and graphene/PEDOT:PSS/
ZnO in Table 1) warrant more merit than expected from
FOMTCE,mono at L = 0.5 cm.
In addition to uniform TCEs, Anand et al. consider the trans-
mittance-sheet resistance tradeoffs of patterned metal grids
(called “AgNW2, CuNW2, Ag metal mesh, and nanotroughs”
in their work).[1,14] However, metal grids have nonuniformity
that induces resistance in the underlying semiconductor, so
their merit deviates from that of uniform TCEs.[6] Therefore,
coupling a uniform TCE with a metal grid changes TCE merit.
For example, the metal grating in Figure 1c has a transmittance
of Tgrid = s/(s + w), and the sheet resistance of a grating with
ρmetal resistivity and hmetal height is Rsh,grid = ρmetal · (s + w)/(w ·
hmetal). Such a grid changes resistance in the TCE to RTCE,grid
while adding resistance in the grid (Rgrid)[6]
FOMTCE FOMTCE,mono FOMTCE,mono,opt FOMTCE,mono,grid,opt
0.843 0.803 0.803 0.823
0.799 0.761 0.783 0.832
0.496 0.472 0.719 0.813
0.176 0.167 0.170 0.169
−2
 16146840, 2022, 23, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aenm.202103119 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [07/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.advenergymat.de

Rsh,TCE ⋅ s 2 Rsh,TCE ⋅ Tgrid ⋅ w

2 2

R TCE,grid = = (16)
12 ⋅ A 12 ⋅ A ⋅ (1 − Tgrid )
2

Rsh,grid ⋅ L2 ρmetal ⋅ L2 ρ metal ⋅ L2 ⋅ ( s + w )

R grid = = = (17)
3⋅ A 3 ⋅ A ⋅ hmetal ⋅ (1 − Tgrid ) 3 ⋅ A ⋅ hmetal ⋅ w
Neglecting contact resistance and edge effects, MP current
density, MP voltage, and TCE merit are then[6]

JMP ⋅ TTCE,avg ⋅ L ⋅ s
J MP,TCE,mono,grid = J MP ⋅ TTCE,avg ⋅ Tmono ⋅ Tgrid = (18)
(L + d ) ⋅ ( s + w )

VMP,TCE,mono,grid = VMP − (R TCE,grid + Rgrid ) ⋅ A ⋅ J MP

 Rsh,TCE ⋅ Tgrid
2
⋅ w2 ρmetal ⋅ L2  (19)
= VMP −  2 +  ⋅ J MP
 12 ⋅ (1 − Tgrid ) 3 ⋅ hmetal ⋅ (1 − Tgrid ) 
Figure 6. Figures of merit versus TCE sheet resistance (Rsh,TCE): FOMTCE
(solid teal), FOMTCE with L = 0.7 cm (dotted teal), FOMTCE with a band
FOM TCE,mono,grid = TTCE,avg ⋅ Tmono ⋅ Tgrid ⋅ gap of 900 nm (JMP,DB = 32.91 mA cm−2 and VMP,DB = 1021 mV; dashed
 R  J  teal), FOMTCE,grid,opt (solid purple), FOMTCE,mono,grid,opt (solid pink), and
sh,TCE ⋅ Tgrid ⋅ w ρmetal ⋅ L2
2 2
1− 
MP
 FOMTCE,mono,opt (blue). Calculations use L = 0.5 cm, TTCE,avg = 0.9, a band
2 + ⋅
  12 ⋅ (1 − Tgrid ) 3 ⋅ hmetal ⋅ (1 − Tgrid )  VMP  (20) gap of 1100 nm (JMP,DB = 42.15 mA cm−2 and VMP,DB = 793.9 mV), d =
250 µm, ρmetal = 10−5 Ω cm, w = 56 µm, and hmetal = 13 µm unless noted
TTCE,avg ⋅ L ⋅ s   Rsh,TCE ⋅ s ρmetal ⋅ L ⋅ ( s + w )  J MP 
2 2
or optimized.
= ⋅1−  + ⋅
(L + d ) ⋅ ( s + w )   12 3 ⋅ hmetal ⋅ w  VMP 

Figure 3 shows FOMTCE,mono,grid as a function of L. At a given
JMP, VMP, d, ρmetal, w, and hmetal, FOMTCE,mono,grid can be numeri-
cally optimized with respect to L and Tgrid (or s) to arrive at
FOMTCE,mono,grid,opt (Table 1). Adding a low temperature (220 °C)
screen-printed grating with ρmetal of 10−5 Ω cm, w of 56 µm, and
hmetal of 13 µm[15] shifts TCE merit to Rsh,TCE that are more than
an order of magnitude higher (FOMTCE versus FOMTCE,mono,grid
in Figure 5).
Figure 5 demonstrates that an indium tin oxide (ITO)-like TCE
(TTCE,avg = 0.9; Rsh,TCE = 10 Ω sq−1) applied to an 1100 nm band
gap absorber performs better the shorter the cell length for ϕAnand
and FOMTCE. When integrated with monoliths (d = 250 µm),
such a TCE has an optimal cell length of 0.4 cm and current den-
sity is reduced by a factor of Tmono = 0.941. When integrated with
monoliths and a screen-printed metal grid, such a TCE optimally
conducts over 0.15 cm (fingers spaced 0.3 cm apart), has a cell
length of 1.2 cm, and current density reduced by factors of Tmono =
0.979 and Tgrid = 0.982 (Tmono⋅Tgrid = 0.961). These examples show
how module architecture builds in optical losses and specifies the
optimal distance over which the TCE conducts current, both of
which have pronounced effects on TCE merit.
For applying TCEs to silicon heterojunctions, low-temper-
ature screen-printed metal grids are used without monolith
deadspace, leading to a simpler version of Equation (20)
FOM TCE,grid = TTCE,avg ⋅ Tgrid ⋅
 R  J 
sh,TCE ⋅ Tgrid ⋅ w ρ metal ⋅ L2
2 2
1−  
MP
2 + ⋅
  12 ⋅ (1 − Tgrid ) 3 ⋅ hmetal ⋅ (1 − Tgrid )  VMP 
TTCE,avg ⋅ s   Rsh,TCE ⋅ s 2 ρ metal ⋅ L2 ⋅ ( s + w )  J MP 
= ⋅ 1− + ⋅
( s + w )   12 3 ⋅ hmetal ⋅ w  VMP 
FOMTCE,grid is shown in Figure 5. In practice, Rsh,TCE can
affect band bending and lateral conduction within silicon het-
erojunction solar cells’ p–n junctions,[16] leading to series resist-
ance that is nonlinear in Rsh,TCE and requires simulation.[17]
There is no single ideal situation for which TCE merit
should be calculated: Anand et al. discussed absorber band
gap and cell length, both of which change the x-intercept of
FOMTCE in Figure 6. Perhaps for brevity, Anand et al. did not
discuss module architecture, which changes the x-intercept by
even more and also changes the y-intercept (FOMTCE,grid,opt,
FOMTCE,mono,grid,opt, and FOMTCE,mono,opt in Figure 6).
3. Conclusions
Anand et al. introduce an implicit equation for merit of trans-
parent conductive electrodes (TCEs) in photovoltaics (PV) by
lumping series resistance in with the diode. Previous work
lumped series resistance external to the diode to derive an
explicit equation for merit. Since both approaches are good
approximations for literature data, the explicit figure of merit
is preferred. Although not discussed by Anand et al., module
architecture deserves consideration because it changes the
FOM function. For example, monolith deadspace changes cell
length dependence, and metal grids impart more merit to TCEs
with high sheet resistance.
(21) Acknowledgements
This work was authored by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
operated by Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC, for the U.S. Department
of Energy (DOE) under Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO308. Funding was

Adv. Energy Mater. 2022, 12, 2103119 2103119 (5 of 6) © Published 2022. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA

www.advancedsciencenews.com
provided by U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy (EERE) Solar Energy Technologies Office
Award Numbers 33665 and 34352, as well as the Office of Technology
Transitions (OTT) Award Number 37248. The views expressed in
the article do not necessarily represent the views of the DOE or the
U.S. Government. The U.S. Government retains and the publisher,
by accepting the article for publication, acknowledges that the U.S.
Government retains a nonexclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, worldwide
license to publish or reproduce the published form of this work, or allow
others to do so, for U.S. Government purposes.
Conflict of Interest
The author declares no conflict of interest.
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the
corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Keywords
figure of merit, photovoltaics, transparent conductive electrodes
Received: October 7, 2021
Revised: December 21, 2021
Published online: May 3, 2022
[1] A. Anand, M. M. Islam, R. Meitzner, U. S. Schubert, H. Hoppe, Adv.
Energy Mater. 2021, 11, 2100875.
[2] a) N. C. Wyeth, Solid-State Electron. 1977, 20, 629; b) M. A. Green,
Solar Cells: Operating Principles, Technology, and System Applications,
Prentice-Hall, Inc., New York 1982.
[3] G. T. Koishiyev, J. R. Sites, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2009, 93, 350.
[4] T. M. Barnes, M. O. Reese, J. D. Bergeson, B. A. Larsen,
J. L. Blackburn, M. C. Beard, J. Bult, J. van de Lagemaat, Adv. Energy
Mater. 2012, 2, 353.
Adv. Energy Mater. 2022, 12, 2103119 2103119 (6 of 6) © Published 2022. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA
16146840, 2022, 23, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aenm.202103119 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [07/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
www.advenergymat.de
[5] D. A. Jacobs, K. R. Catchpole, F. J. Beck, T. P. White, J. Mater. Chem.
A 2016, 4, 4490.
[6] C. P. Muzzillo, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2017, 169, 68.
[7] M. W. Rowell, M. D. McGehee, Energy Environ. Sci. 2011, 4, 131.
[8] A. Mette, Dissertation, Verlag Dr. Hut 2007, 241.
[9] M. A. Green, Solid-State Electron. 1981, 24, 788.
[10] a) G. L. Araujo, A. Cuevas, J. M. Ruiz, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices
1986, 33, 391; b) A. Cuevas, S. López-Romero, Sol. Cells 1984, 11, 163;
c) A. de Vos, Sol. Cells 1984, 12, 311; d) A. De Vos, P. De Visschere,
Sol. Cells 1983, 10, 69; e) M. W. Denhoff, N. Drolet, Sol. Energy Mater.
Sol. Cells 2009, 93, 1499; f) I. L. Eisgruber, J. R. Sites, presented
at First World Conference on Photovoltaic Energy Conversion (Eds:
P. D. Moskowitz, H. Steinberger, W. Thumm) 5–9 December 1994;
g) A. W. Haas, J. R. Wilcox, J. L. Gray, R. J. Schwartz, presented
at 34th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, 7–12 June 2009;
h) A. W. Haas, J. R. Wilcox, J. L. Gray, R. J. Schwartz, presented at 35th
IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, 20–25 June 2010; i) K.-S. Lee,
Prog. Photovoltaics 2013, 21, 195; j) L. D. Nielsen, IEEE Trans. Electron
Devices 1982, 29, 821; k) D. Pysch, A. Mette, S. W. Glunz, Sol. Energy
Mater. Sol. Cells 2007, 91, 1698; l) M. Seeland, H. Hoppe, Phys.
Status Solidi A 2015, 212, 1991; m) A. Vishnoi, R. Gopal, R. Dwivedi,
S. K. Srivastava, IEE Proc. G: Circ., Devices Syst. 1993, 140, 155;
n) J.-M. Wagner, J. Carstensen, R. Adelung, Phys. Status Solidi A 2020,
217, 1900612; o) J.-M. Wagner, S. Rißland, A. Schütt, J. Carstensen,
R. Adelung, Energy Procedia 2017, 124, 197; p) J.-M. Wagner,
A. Schütt, J. Carstensen, R. Adelung, Energy Procedia 2016, 92, 255;
q) A. Luque, J. M. Ruiz, A. Cuevas, J. Eguren, M. G. Agost, presented
at Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference, Luxembourg, September 1977.
[11] C. P. Muzzillo, M. O. Reese, L. M. Mansfield, ACS Appl. Mater.
Interfaces 2020, 12, 25895.
[12] V. Bermudez, A. Perez-Rodriguez, Nat. Energy 2018, 3, 466.
[13] M. Burgelman, A. Niemegeers, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 1998, 51,
129.
[14] K. D. M. Rao, C. Hunger, R. Gupta, G. U. Kulkarni, M. Thelakkat,
Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2014, 16, 15107.
[15] D. Erath, M. Pospischil, R. Keding, M. Jahn, I. Lacmago Lontchi,
A. Lorenz, F. Clement, Energy Procedia 2017, 124, 869.
[16] M. Bivour, S. Schröer, M. Hermle, S. W. Glunz, Sol. Energy Mater.
Sol. Cells 2014, 122, 120.
[17] A. Cruz, E.-C. Wang, A. B. Morales-Vilches, D. Meza, S. Neubert,
B. Szyszka, R. Schlatmann, B. Stannowski, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol.
Cells 2019, 195, 339.