Search

Potential‐induced degradation‐polarization (PID‐p) can reduce module power, but how to project the extent to which PID‐p may occur in field conditions considering the factors of system voltage, condensed moisture, temperature, and illumination has not been clarified. Using tunnel oxide passivated contact (TOPCon) modules, this work demonstrates a method to test full‐size crystalline silicon PV modules for PID‐p to provide field‐representative results. In initial screening tests with positive or negative 1000 V electrical bias applied at 60°C for 96 h using Al foil electrodes on the glass surfaces, the module type exhibited reversible PID‐p only on the front face when the cell circuit was in negative voltage potential. No PID was detected on the rear after testing in either polarity. We then evaluated the PID‐p sensitivity on the front side under different UV irradiances while maintaining the glass surface wet to estimate real‐world susceptibility to PID‐p. The magnitude of the observed behavior was fit using a previously developed charge transfer and depletion by light model. Whereas power loss with −1000 V applied to the cell circuit at 60°C for 96 h in the dark was about 30%, testing the module front under 0.051 W·m−2 nm−1 at 340 nm UVA irradiation using fluorescent tubes, the mean degradation was only 3%. When the modules were tested in the dark for PID‐p with in situ dark current–voltage (I‐V) characterization, the thermal activation energy for degradation was 0.71 eV; for recovery in the dark, it was 0.58 eV. Whereas recovery from the degraded state at 60°C in the dark without voltage bias was 5% absolute in 38 h, rapid recovery of about 5% absolute was observed with 1000 W·s/m2 exposure at 25°C using a flash tester. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In view of the increasing interest and market share of bifacial cells and modules, suitable substrates such as glass and transparent backsheets along with ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) and polyolefin elastomer (POE) encapsulants were examined in combined‐accelerated stress testing (C‐AST) to evaluate and compare degradation modes. Testing with both monofacial and bifacial cells, we found that glass–glass modules with monofacial cells led to greater grid finger breakage than those with polymeric backsheets. This is attributed to previous X‐ray topography and modeling work showing higher stress in cells and interconnections in glass–glass modules than glass backsheet modules. Consistent with the objectives of C‐AST, which stresses modules at levels corresponding to the limits seen in the natural environment, we observed the UV‐fluorescence signatures of modules tested in C‐AST (considering the degradation associated with developing chromophores, moisture penetration, and photobleaching effects) to be like those in fielded modules, more so than other chamber stress testing implemented for comparison. We found light‐induced degradation (LID) in module types with regenerated (inactive) cells with C‐AST, suggesting the possibility of LID destabilization in some field conditions. We could also distinguish potential‐induced degradation (PID) on the back of the bifacial passivated emitter and rear cells (PERC) in C‐AST. Confirming with ex situ tests, we found polarization‐type PID most prevalent in glass‐glass modules with EVA as would be anticipated considering the greater leakage current through such module encapsulation. Unlike PID tests performed in the dark, which can lead to false positive PID test results, field‐representative illumination is experienced by the modules on the front and back sides while −1200 V system voltage is applied in C‐AST, supporting the conclusion that this module type with glass‐glass construction would be susceptible to PID in the field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The direct current bias for photovoltaic (PV) modules interconnected in series‐strings may include both high voltage negative ("HV−") and positive ("HV+") polarity with respect to the electrical ground. Multiple degradation modes, resulting in quantifiable optical loss, were found to occur during HV−/HV+ sequential stress, including corrosion of the external glass surface, encapsulant delamination (at its interfaces with the glass and the PV cell), internal haze formation (resulting from a chemical interaction between the glass and the encapsulant), corrosion and migration of the gridlines, and corrosion of the silicon nitride (SixNy) antireflective coating on the cell. The effects of these separate modes were examined using monolithic (e.g., glass or PV cell) and laminated‐coupon (glass/encapsulant/glass or glass/encapsulant/cell/encapsulant/backsheet) specimens. Characterizations during and after unbiased accelerated testing at 85°C/85% relative humidity included spectrophotometry, optical microscopy, electron microscopy, and ellipsometry. For some module components (i.e., the glass and the SixNy coating), the optical performance was determined through iterative analysis of empirical measurements. Concentrating on just their spectral effect, a novel model was then developed to estimate the transfer of light to the PV cell and the return of light from the PV module with simultaneous degradation mechanisms, which was compared with a mini‐module previously subjected to HV−/HV+ stress. The model suggests that one third of the current loss observed for the mini‐module can be attributed to the optical degradation of the packaging materials. The dominant degradation modes include encapsulant delamination and corrosion of the SixNy coating. Recommendations are given so that the optical model may be improved relative to accelerated testing and validated relative to field aging. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bifacial modules are increasingly deployed in the field and are expected to represent half of the market share within 10 years. Their rear structure differs from monofacial modules to allow additional light absorption. However, it brings new reliability challenges to address. In particular, the risk of potential‐induced degradation (PID) is increased as both module sides are impacted. Different PID processes have been identified in the literature: shunting type (PID‐s), polarization type (PID‐p), Na penetration type, and corrosion type (PID‐c). Their occurrence depends on the photovoltaic system configuration as well as the module's materials. Apart from PID‐s, PID processes are not well understood and extensive research is needed to elucidate the PID scenario and underlying mechanisms. Herein, current knowledge about PID processes and their impact on the main bifacial modules in the market are gathered with the aim to guide future research. Bifacial module technologies and leakage current paths leading to PID are described. Indoor and outdoor PID testing methods are detailed. For each bifacial module technology, the PID processes are investigated with their indicators, mechanism and recovery process. PID‐impacting factors and limitation solutions are finally reported and a state of the art on PID modeling is presented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Degradation from ultraviolet (UV) radiation has become prevalent in the front of solar cells due to the introduction of UV‐transmitting encapsulants in photovoltaic (PV) module construction. Here, we examine UV‐induced degradation (UVID) in various commercial, unencapsulated crystalline silicon cell technologies, including bifacial silicon heterojunction (HJ), interdigitated back contact (IBC), passivated emitter and rear contact (PERC), and passivated emitter rear totally diffused (PERT) solar cells. We performed UV exposure tests using UVA‐340 fluorescent lamps at 1.24 W·m−2 (at 340 nm) and 45°C through 4.02 MJ·m−2 (2000 h). Our results showed that modern cell architectures are more vulnerable to UVID, leading to a significant power decrease (−3.6% on average; −11.8% maximum) compared with the conventional aluminum back surface field (Al‐BSF) cells (<−1% on average). The power degradation is largely caused by the decrease in short‐circuit current and open‐circuit voltage. A greater power decrease is observed in bifacial cells with rear‐side exposure compared with those with front‐side exposure, indicating that the rear side is more susceptible to UV damage. Secondary ion mass spectroscopy (SIMS) confirmed an increase in hydrogen concentration near the Si/passivation interface in HJ and IBC cells after UV exposure; the excess of hydrogen could result in hydrogen‐induced degradation and subsequently cause higher recombination losses. Additionally, surface oxidation and hot‐carrier damage were identified in PERT cells. Using a spectral‐based analysis, we obtained an acceleration factor of 5× between unpackaged cells (containing a silicon nitride antireflective coating on the front) in the UV test and an encapsulated module (with the front glass and encapsulant blocking 90% of the UV at 294 nm and 353 nm, respectively) in outdoor conditions. From the analytical calculations, we show that a UV‐blocking encapsulant can reduce UV transmission in the module by an additional factor of ~50. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Power loss caused by polarization‐type potential‐induced degradation (PID‐p) in a variety of high‐performance photovoltaic cell types has been observed to be recoverable via subsequent illumination and in some cases preventable via simultaneous illumination. In this report, we describe the results of a study in which the front faces of n‐PERT cells encapsulated in polymers with a broad range of electrical resistivity were exposed to varying and controlled irradiance during PID testing. For a low resistivity ethylene‐vinyl acetate copolymer encapsulant, no reduction in the rate or extent of power loss was observed for irradiance as high as 1,000 W/m2, whereas for high and intermediate resistivity polyolefin encapsulants, 100 and 300 W/m2, respectively, prevented power loss. We introduce a simple model based on charge accumulation that facilitates interpretation of these results whereby degradation via charge accumulation under voltage stress and recovery due to light exposure are opposing and interdependent phenomena that describe the susceptibility of a module to power loss. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]