Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Research on the Power Drop of Photovoltaic Module’s Aging Through the Thermal Shock Test
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
Research on the Power Drop of Photovoltaic Module’s Aging Through the Thermal Shock Test
Kang, MinSoo; Jeon, YuJae; Kim, DoSeok; Shin, YoungEui;
  PDF(new window)
While analyzing the specimens before and after the thermal shock test, we found that the power drop rate of the bare cell was 5.08%, while the power drop rate of the ribboned cell was 16.49%. In comparative terms, the efficiency was lower at the ribboned cell than at the bare cell. While analyzing through EL (Electroluminescence) shots and cross sections, we tried to decipher the exact cause of the power drop. Although mere color change of the cell was observed at the surface of the bare cell, no abnormality could be found inside the cell. On the surface of the ribboned cell, the short circuit of gridfinger extended from the front part of the front electrode of the ribboned cells. Therefore, cracks occurred on the surface of the cell. Cracks also appeared inside the cell. While analyzing the I-V curve, we determined an increase in the leakage current and an increase of resistances in series in the bare cell. In the ribboned cell, the resistances in parallel reduced remarkably. An increase of resistances in series could also be verified. Conclusively, we deduced that the power drop rate in the bare cell is a life span of the cell itself; aging is the cause of power drop rate in cells. In case of ribboned cell, the power drop rate was directly influenced by internal cracks and an intermetallic compound layer joining the ribbon at the front electrode.
Photovoltaic module;Solar cell;Thermal shock test;Micro cracks;EL;I-V;Cross section analysis;
 Cited by
S. Pingel, Y. Zemen, O. Frank, T. Geipel, and J. Berghold, Proc. of the 24th EUPVSEC (WIP, Dresden, Germany, 2009) p. 3459-3464.

M. Köntges and K. Bothe, Photovoltaik Aktuell Supplement in Elektro Praktiker 7/8, 36-40 (2008).

M. Köntges, S. Kajari-Schroder, I. Kunze, and U. Jahn, 26th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition (Germany, 2011) p. 3290-3294.

M. Köntges, I. Kunze, S. Kajari-Schröder, X. Breitenmoser, and B. Bjørneklett, Sol. Energ. Mat. Sol. C., 95, 1131 (2011). crossref(new window)

A. M. Gabor, M. Railli, S. Montminy, L. Alegria, C. Bordonaro, J. Woods, and L. Felton, Proc. of the 21th EUPVSEC (WIP, Dresden, Germany, 2006) p. 2042-2047.

M. G. Villalva, J. R. Gazoli, and E. R. Filho, IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, 24, 1198 (2009). [DOI:] crossref(new window)

G. R. Walker, Journal of Electrical & Electronics Engineering, 21, 49 (2001).

R. Khatri, S. Agarwal, I. Saha, S. K. Singh, and B. Kumar, Energy Procedia, 8, 396 (2011). crossref(new window)

J. Wendt, M. Trager, M. Mette, A. Pfennig, and B. Jackel, Proc. of the 24th EUPVSEC (WIP, Hamburg, Germany, 2009) p. 3420-3423.

W. De Soto, S. A. Klein, and W. A. Beckman, Solar Energy, 80, 78 (2006). crossref(new window)

E.Q.B. Macabebe, C. J. Sheppard, and E. E. Van Dyk, Solar Energy, 85, 12 (2011). crossref(new window)

V. V. Voronkov and R. Falster, J. of Appl. Phys., 107 (2010).

T. L. Yang, K. Y. Huang, S. Yang, H. H. Hsieh, and C. R. Kao, Sol. Energ. Mat. Sol. C., 123, 139 (2014). [DOI:] crossref(new window)