Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Energy Procedia 98 (2016) 12 – 22

6th Workshop on Metallization and Interconnection for Crystalline Silicon Solar Cells, 2016

The Future of Metallization and Interconnection –

Forecast of experts of the 6th Metallization Workshop
Gunnar Schubert*a, Guy Beaucarneb, Loïc Tousc, Jaap Hoornstra
a
BW Cooperative State University Ravensburg, Fallenbrunnen 2, 88045 Friedrichshafen, Germany
b
Dow Corning, Parc Industriel, Zone C, Rue Jules Bordet, 7180 Seneffe, Belgium
c
imec, kapeldreef 75, 3001 Leuven, Belgium

Abstract

We present the results of a survey on the future of metallization and interconnection. The survey was carried out at the 6th
Metallization Workshop that took place in Constance, Germany in May 2016. Experts were asked to forecast the development of
metallization and interconnection technology for crystalline silicon solar cells in the next years. The results are presented and
compared to the results of the previous years.

©
© 2016
2016TheTheAuthors. Published
Authors. by Elsevier
Published Ltd. This
by Elsevier Ltd.is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of the Metallization Workshop 2016.
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of the Metallization Workshop 2016
Keywords: Metallization; Interconnection; Solar Cells; Solar Modules; Future of Metallization; Silver; Copper

1. Introduction

140 participants took part at the 6th Workshop on Metallization and Interconnection. 65% shared their view on
the future of metallization and interconnection. Of those, 44% represent universities and R&D institutes, 56%
represent the solar industry including material-, equipment- and cell and module manufactures as well as
consultants. In this short document we present the outcome of the 2016 survey and compare it with those of previous
surveys [1, 2].

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +497541 / 2077-231; fax: +49(0)7541 / 2077-198.

E-mail address: schubert@dhbw-ravensburg.de

1876-6102 © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of the Metallization Workshop 2016
doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2016.10.090
 Gunnar Schubert et al. / Energy Procedia 98 (2016) 12 – 22 13

2. Metallization techniques

2.1. Results survey 2016

As in previous years, screen printing is anticipated to dominate solar cell metallization for the foreseeable future.
In 10 years’ time, it will still have a share of more than 60 %. The most likely technique to take some share is
plating (Fig. 1).

100%
in3Years
90%
in5years
80%
in10years
70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Screenprint Plating Hybrid InkͲJet PVD Newconcepts

Fig. 1: Results 2016: What in your opinion will be the percentage share metallization techniques in solar cell production in 3 years, 5 years, 10
years?

2.2. Comparison view of researchers from industry and universities / institutes

This view is shared by experts from both industry and R&D centres. There seems to be slightly less optimism
about plating taking off among industry experts than among R&D centre experts. In the 10 years projection,
participants from industry anticipate more metallization new concepts than plating (Fig. 2).
14 Gunnar Schubert et al. / Energy Procedia 98 (2016) 12 – 22

100%
Institutesin3Years
90%
Industryin3Years
80%
Institutesin5years
70% Industryin5years

60% Institutesin10years
Industryin10years
50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Screenprint Plating Hybrid InkͲJet PVd Newconcepts

Fig. 2: Results 2016: What in your opinion will be the percentage share metallization techniques in solar cell production in 3 years, 5 years,
10 years? Comparison view of participants from universities and R&D institutes with view of participants from industry.

2.3. Comparison with previous surveys

If we plot the projections done in the different years, we can see that the view that screen printing is here to stay
has become stronger among experts over the years. In contrast the confidence that plating will eventually take over,
which had showed a peak in 2013, has recently decreased. A hybrid technology, where a metallization seed is first
obtained by screen printing and firing and subsequently thickened by plating, seems to lose in appeal year after year
(Fig. 3).
 Gunnar Schubert et al. / Energy Procedia 98 (2016) 12 – 22 15

a
100%
In3Years2008
80% In3Years2010
In3Years2011
60% In3Years2013
In3Years2014
40%
In3Years2016
20%

0%
Screenprint Plating Hybrid InkͲJet PVD Newconcepts
b
100%
In5Years2008
80% In5Years2010
In5Years2011
60% In5Years2013
In5Years2014
40%
In5Years2016
20%

0%
Screenprint Plating Hybrid InkͲJet PVD Newconcepts
c
100%
In10Years2008
80% In10Years2010
In10Years2011
60% In10Years2013
In10Years2014
40% In10Years2016
20%

0%
Screenprint Plating Hybrid InkͲJet PVD Newconcepts

Fig. 3: Comparison of the results of all surveys in 2008, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014 and 2016 in a) 3 years, b) 5 years and c) 10 years
16 Gunnar Schubert et al. / Energy Procedia 98 (2016) 12 – 22

2.4. Comparison projections for 2018/2019 and 2021 from different surveys

Another way of looking at these survey results is to show the anticipated technology shares in a given year,
comparing the results obtained during the different surveys. As the target year comes closer, there is a better view on
what is actually going to happen. Comparing the different projections therefore tells us how wrong we were with
projections in the past. In Fig. 4and Fig. 5, it is obvious that the capacity of screen printing technology to maintain
its dominant position was underestimated in the past. In contrast, experts seemed to be too optimistic about
penetration of new metallization technologies in the past and now have had to reduce their projections.

100,00%
Comparison2018/2019
90,00% 2018
Survey2008in10years
80,00%
2019
70,00% Survey2014in5years

60,00% 2019
Survey2016in3years
50,00%

40,00%

30,00%

20,00%

10,00%

0,00%
Screenprint Plating Hybrid InkͲJet PVD Newconcepts

Fig. 4: Projection share metallization technology in 2018 / 2019 ("in 3 years" survey 2016, "in 5 years" survey 2014 and "in 10 years" survey
2008
 Gunnar Schubert et al. / Energy Procedia 98 (2016) 12 – 22 17

100,00%
Comparison2020/2021
90,00% 2020
Survey2010in10years

80,00%
2021
Survey2011in10Years
70,00%

2021
60,00% Survey2016in5Years

50,00%

40,00%

30,00%

20,00%

10,00%

0,00%
Screenprint Plating Hybrid InkͲJet PVD Newconcepts

Fig. 5: Projection share metallization technology in 2020 / 2021 ("in 5 years" survey 2016, "in 10 years" survey 2011 and "in 10 years" survey
2010

3. Metals used for front grid metallization

As in past surveys, it is expected that Ag will remain the preferred material for the front grid, with Cu gradually
taking some share (Fig. 6). Similar to the results regarding the metallization technology the expected share of copper
as metallization metal is less in the projection of industry experts than of R&D center experts (Fig. 7).
18 Gunnar Schubert et al. / Energy Procedia 98 (2016) 12 – 22

100%
90% 2016in3years

80% 2016in5years

70% 2016in10years

60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Silver Copper Other

Fig. 6: Results 2016: What in your opinion will be the percentage share of the metals used for front grid in solar cell production in 3 years, 5
years, 10 years?

100%
90% Institutesin3years

80% Industryin3years
Institutesin5years
70%
Industryin5years
60%
Institutesin10years
50%
Industryin10years
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Silver Copper Other

Fig. 7: Results 2016: What in your opinion will be the percentage share of the metals used for front grid in solar cell production in 3 years, 5
years, 10 years? Comparison view of participants from universities and R&D institutes with view of participants from industry.

However, in line with the metallization technology forecast the forecast for silver has increased and the forecast
for the use of copper has decreased. In 10 years, it is expected that still Ag still will have 70 % share for the front
grid (Fig. 8).
 Gunnar Schubert et al. / Energy Procedia 98 (2016) 12 – 22 19

a
100,00%
In3Yearsfrom2011
In3Yearsfrom2013
80,00%
In3Yearsfrom2014
In3Yearsfrom2016
60,00%

40,00%

20,00%

0,00%
Silver Copper Other

b
100,00%
In5Yearsfrom2011
In5Yearsfrom2013
80,00% In5Yearsfrom2014
In5Yearsfrom2016
60,00%

40,00%

20,00%

0,00%
Silver Copper Other

c
100,00%
In10Yearsfrom2011
In10Yearsfrom2013
80,00% In10Yearsfrom2014
In10Yearsfrom2016
60,00%

40,00%

20,00%

0,00%
Silver Copper Other

Fig. 8: Comparison of the results of all surveys in 2011, 2013, 2014 and 2016 in a) 3 years, b) 5 years and c) 10 years.
20 Gunnar Schubert et al. / Energy Procedia 98 (2016) 12 – 22

4. Interconnection technology

For interconnection technology, we have a similar situation to metallization technology, with one technology,
soldering ribbons on busbars, dominating and projected to continue doing so for a long time. Multiwire
interconnection and ribbon bonding with conductive adhesives are, however, anticipated to take significant shares,
resulting in 20 %, resp. 10 % in 2026. Interconnection with conductive backsheets is not expected to take a strong
foothold in the market (Fig. 9 and Fig. 10).

100%
90% In3yearsfrom2016
80% In5yearsfrom2016

70% In10yearsfrom2016

60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Solderingon Multiwire Gluingribbons Conductive Other
busbars backsheets

Fig. 9: Results 2016: In your opinion what will be the percentage share of interconnection technology in 3 years, 5 years, 10 years?

100%
90% Institutesin3years
80% Industryin3years
70% Institutesin5years
60% Industryin5years
50% Institutesin10years
40% Industryin10years
30%
20%
10%
0%
Solderingon Multiwire Gluingribbons Conductive Other
busbars backsheets

Fig. 10: Results 2016: In your opinion what will be the percentage share of interconnection technology in 3 years, 5 years, 10 years?
 Gunnar Schubert et al. / Energy Procedia 98 (2016) 12 – 22 21

Comparison view of participants from universities and R&D institutes with view of participants from industry.

Comparing present results with last survey’s we see a similar increase in confidence in established technology.
The optimism about a fast adoption of multiwire technology seems to have somewhat decreased (Fig. 11).

a 100%
In3yearsfrom2014
80%
In3yearsfrom2016
60%

40%

20%

0%
Solderingon Multiwire Gluingribbons Conductive Other
busbars backsheets
b 100%
In10yearsfrom2014
80%
In10yearsfrom2016
60%

40%

20%

0%
Solderingon Multiwire Gluingribbons Conductive Other
busbars backsheets
c 100%
In5yearsfrom2014
80%
In5yearsfrom2016
60%

40%

20%

0%
Solderingon Multiwire Gluingribbons Conductive Other
busbars backsheets

Fig. 11: Comparison of the results of all surveys in 2014 and 2016 in a) 3 years, b) 5 years and c) 10 years.
22 Gunnar Schubert et al. / Energy Procedia 98 (2016) 12 – 22

5. Summary

The 2016 survey revealed that the established technologies, screen printing in metallization and ribbon soldering
in interconnection have maintained and even strengthen their dominant positions in the market. New technologies
are anticipated to gradually be adopted by the industry, but at a slower pace than was thought in the past.

References

[1] G. Schubert, G. Beaucarne, J. Hoornstra, The Future of Metallization – Results from Questionnaires of the Four Workshops from 2008 to
2013, Energy Procedia, Volume 43, 2013, Pages 12-17, ISSN 1876-6102, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2013.11.083
[2] G. Schubert, G. Beaucarne, J. Hoornstra, The Future of Metallization – Forecast of the Experts of the 5th Metallization Workshop, Energy
Procedia, Volume 67, 2015, Pages 13-19, ISSN 1876-6102, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2015.03.283