October 1, 2007 / Vol. 32, No.

19 / OPTICS LETTERS 2789

Dielectric microconcentrators for efficiency

enhancement in concentrator solar cells
Omer Korech,1 Jeffrey M. Gordon,1,2,* Eugene A. Katz,1 Daniel Feuermann,1 and Naftali Eisenberg3
1
Department of Solar Energy & Environmental Physics, Jacob Blaustein Institutes for Desert Research,
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Sede Boqer Campus 84990, Israel
2
The Pearlstone Center for Aeronautical Engineering Studies, Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva 84105, Israel
3
Jerusalem College of Technology, 21 Havaad Haleumi Street, POB 16031, Jerusalem 91160, Israel
*Corresponding author: jeff@bgu.ac.il

Received February 23, 2007; revised May 31, 2007; accepted June 6, 2007;
posted June 12, 2007 (Doc. ID 80397); published September 20, 2007
Metal fingers typically cover more than 10% of the active area of concentrator solar cells. Microfabricated
dielectric optical designs that can completely eliminate front contact shading losses are explored. Essentially
no microconcentrator optical losses need be incurred, series resistance losses can be reduced, and net effi-
ciency gains of roughly 15% (relative) are realistic. © 2007 Optical Society of America
OCIS codes: 220.1770, 350.3950, 350.6050.

The optimal metal grid coverage of concentrator solar redistribution that completely obviates shading
cells reflects the trade-off between shading obscura- losses is illustrated in Fig. 2. Nonimaging ␪1 / ␪2 AD-
tion and series resistance Rs (Fig. 1). Cell efficiency MCs predicated on total internal reflection (TIR) rep-
peaks as a function of concentration, with a strong resent solutions [13,14] in the sense that, for given
nonlinear decrease controlled by Rs at high flux maximum input and output angles, ␪1 and ␪2, respec-
[2–4]. The metallization fraction of the active area in tively, they (a) provide the possibility of lossless op-
commercial concentrator cells is typically 10–16% tics, (b) represent the most compact device possible
[2–8]. Strategies for redirecting light from the metal for any prescribed metallization coverage for a flat
grid to interfinger regions include (1) prismatic and ADMC entry, and (c) yield V-troughs that are in
microlens refractive covers [3,4], and (2) reshaping many cases of practical interest, as they are particu-
ordinarily rectangular metal fingers [7]. These ap- larly amenable to accurate fabrication.
proaches incur optical losses due to [3–7] (a) absorp- The gridline spacing in most current high-
tion (imperfect reflectivity or transmissivity), (b) efficiency concentrator cells is around 100 ␮m, inde-
problems in realizing precise refractive or reflective
contours, (c) Fresnel reflections at the extra air–
dielectric interfaces, and (d) aberrations. For silicon
solar cells, grid shadowing can be obviated with back
contacts, an option intrinsically precluded for ultra-
efficient III-V photovoltaics (PVs).
The confluence of the realization of cells of the type
in Fig. 1 with the evolution of microfabrication tech-
niques prompts the development of microconcentra-
tors that can completely eliminate front contact shad-
ing losses. Polymeric materials are disadvantageous
because (1) high solar flux may degrade them and (2)
the requisite aspect ratios and optical tolerances are
not currently achievable [9]. But glass elements in
high-flux PV concentrators have proved robust [2–5],
so we consider glass microfabrication procedures.
With the industrial deployment of femtosecond la-
sers, new technologies such as two-photon polymer-
ization [10] and direct microfabrication in glass [11]
can create the master for replication. Direct glass
fabrication and glass solgel materials [12] are the
best candidates for mass production.
The solar cell resides at the exit of a macroconcen-
trator with a typical acceptance half-angle of
Fig. 1. (Color online) Sample commercial triple-junction
⬃5 – 30 mrad, deployed on a dual-axis solar tracker square concentrator solar cells [1,2,6], both with 12% metal
[2–5,13]. The far larger half-angle ␪1 of light inside grid coverage. (a) 100 mm2 active area, nominal peak effi-
the dielectric microconcentrator, from the exit of the ciency 31%. (b) 1 mm2 active area, nominal peak efficiency
macroconcentrator (often as low as ⬃15– 30°) [3–7] 39%. (c) Simulation results [1] for contributions to effi-
becomes the input design angle for the all-dielectric ciency loss in designing a similar cell tailored so that effi-
microconcentrators (ADMCs) portrayed here. Flux ciency peaks at ⬃500 suns (1 sun= 1 mW/ mm2).

0146-9592/07/192789-3/$15.00 © 2007 Optical Society of America

2790 OPTICS LETTERS / Vol. 32, No. 19 / October 1, 2007

have demonstrated negligible optical losses and du-

Fig. 2. (Color online) Section of the cell’s metal grid (show-
ing current flow in the emitter and grid) [1] and the intro-
duction of a nonimaging ADMC to redistribute impinging
light and totally eliminate front contact shadowing losses.
In this illustration, the grid spacing remains unchanged. In
general, the optic can be adapted to smaller grid spacing,
i.e., to a higher coverage fraction, while still totally elimi-
nating grid shading and introducing essentially zero opti-
cal loss.
pendent of the cell’s linear dimension [1–8] (Fig. 1).
The height of the metal fingers is commonly only a
few micrometers, which is not a limiting factor in the
design of the ADMC troughs analyzed below. The
metal finger width, typically ⬃10 ␮m, can be in-
creased without changing its height, so the upper
range for the metallization coverage considered be-
low is equally tractable. Also, there is negligible ab-
sorption in the ADMC due to the short optical path
length.
Our design relates to the most common metal grid
pattern of parallel strips (Fig. 1). Each ADMC is then
troughlike (2D) with orthogonal flat vertical faces
(Fig. 2). ADMCs can also be tailored to irregular grids
developed to maintain low Rs without raising metal
coverage [4–6]. These 3D ADMCs would require more
complex fabrication procedures and would sustain
some skew ray rejection (typically ⬃1 – 4%) [13].
However, such elaborate metallization schemes can
be replaced by simpler less expensive parallel-strip
grids with 2D ADMCs, because their greater metal
coverage reduces Rs to levels formerly attained with
intricate grid patterns.
Commercial index-matched optical glues 共n ⬃ 1.5兲
for the bond between glass and the antireflective
coatings (ARCs) used in current concentrator cells
rable performance under high solar flux [4,5]. With a
solar reflectivity of ⬃5% at the air–cell interface, the
ARCs are commensurate with neffective ⬃ 1.5, which al-
lows an optically seamless bond with the ADMC (in-
significant Fresnel reflective losses); also, there is no
need to reoptimize the ARC.
The ADMC is a ␪1 / ␪2 nonimaging transformer
[13,14] (Fig. 3). Its untruncated form attains the
thermodynamic limit to 2D flux concentration:
Cmax = sin共␪2兲/sin共␪1兲. 共1兲
Satisfying TIR for all incident rays additionally re-
quires [13,14]
␪1 + ␪2 ⬍ 180° − 2␪c , 共2兲
where ␪c = Sin−1共1 / n兲. It has been rigorously proved
[13] that 2D ␪1 / ␪2 concentrators experience no ray re-
jection, and, subject to n values commensurate with
Eq. (2), no ray leakage, including rays striking the
flat vertical ends in the orthogonal plane. We bound
␪2 by requiring negligible (e.g., ⬍1%) Fresnel reflec-
tive losses at the ADMC–cell interface, which is ␪2
⬍ ⬇ 55° based on measurements from commercial
multijunction concentrator cells [6]. Hence TIR is
satisfied for the parameter space considered (␪1 ⬍
⬇ 30°, ␪2 ⬍ ⬇ 55°, and n = 1.5).
Common combinations of (a) metal grid coverage,
(b) ␪1, and (c) ␪2 typically correspond to ADMC con-
centration ratios C below the limit of Eq. (1). The
ADMC can then be truncated at no sacrifice in light
collection because rays do not enter the ADMC at
angles beyond ␪1. The virtue of truncation is com-
pactness. When truncation cuts to the linear section,
the ADMC becomes a V-trough, putatively the sim-
plest contour to fabricate. Indeed, every V-trough is
rigorously a truncated version of some ␪1 / ␪2 device
and hence is subsumed in the general analysis. The
expressions for ADMC aspect ratio AR (depth/entry)
and C as functions of ␪1, ␪2, and ␪T follow from
straightforward geometry:

冦 冧
2共sin共␪1兲 + sin共␪2兲兲sin共␪T兲
−1 ␪1 艋 ␪T 艋 ␪2
C= 1 − cos共␪1 + ␪T兲 , 共3兲
sin共␪T − 共␪1/2兲 + 共␪2/2兲兲csc共␪T + 共␪1/2兲 − 共␪2/2兲兲 ␪2 艋 ␪T 艋 90°

冦 冧
共sin共␪1兲 + sin共␪2兲兲cos共␪T兲
␪1 艋 ␪T 艋 ␪2
AR = 2共sin共␪1兲 + sin共␪2兲兲sin共␪T兲 + cos共␪1 + ␪T兲 − 1 . 共4兲
csc共␪T − 共␪1/2兲 + 共␪2/2兲兲 cos共共␪1/2兲 − 共␪2/2兲兲cos共␪T兲 ␪2 艋 ␪T 艋 90°

Convolving reasonable fabrication tolerances with creases when the metal fingers are widened (gridline
the actual width of the metal fingers increases the spacing is lessened), to a coverage ratio of 1 − 共1 / C兲
design equivalent finger width by ⬃20%. The lowest [and C bounded by Eq. (1)]. With ␪1 ordained by the
C of interest is for 10% metallization coverage. C in- macroconcentrator, there are two design degrees of
 October 1, 2007 / Vol. 32, No. 19 / OPTICS LETTERS
Fig. 3. (Color online) ␪1 / ␪2 ADMC. Upper contour EDB is
the arc of a parabola with focus at A⬘ and the axis rotated
␪1 relative to the optic axis. Lower section BA is a straight
line tilted at 共␪2 − ␪1兲 / 2. Truncation to point D at angle ␪T
reduces device depth and concentration (note, however,
that rays exit the macroconcentrator and enter the ADMC
only at angles 艋␪1). Sufficient truncation yields a pure
V-trough. The dielectric region is darkened, and the metal
fingers in contact with the cell surface fit comfortably be-
tween adjacent troughs. This truncated ADMC has entry
D⬘D 共⬃100 ␮m兲, ␪1 = 30°, ␪2 = 55°, ␪T = 46°, C = D⬘D / A⬘A
= 1.50, and AR = 0.80.
Fig. 4. (Color online) AR as a function of C for ADMCs at
prescribed ␪1 and ␪2 = 55°. As C is decreased from its maxi-
mum [Eq. (1)] by truncation, for each value of ␪1 a point is
reached (⽧) below which the ADMC is a pure V-trough.
freedom, selected as C and ␪2. The most practical de-
signs are deemed those with the lowest AR, prefer-
ably V-troughs. Representative results are plotted in
Fig. 4, a range of which includes ultracompact
V-troughs.
For the cells of Fig. 1, a lossless ADMC offers an
optical efficiency boost of 12% (relative) by obviating
metallization shadowing and permits lowering Rs
when gridline spacing is reduced. The simulation re-
sults of Fig. 1(c) indicate that, relative to the
minimum-loss design point, the maximum efficiency
augmentation from all Rs-related losses is 7% (rela-
tive). Recovering approximately half of this allows an
overall relative efficiency enhancement of about 15%.
2791
Flux inhomogeneities usually translate into dimin-
ished efficiency relative to uniform cell irradiation.
However, for high-efficiency PVs (1) the effect is es-
sentially nil at C ⬃ 1.1, and (2) even at the highest C
values evaluated above, experiments indicate a neg-
ligible efficiency reduction from the attendant stron-
ger flux nonuniformity [2–4].
Essentially lossless microfabricated all-dielectric
optics can be tailored to completely eliminate the
shadowing losses metallization grids create on con-
centrator solar cells [15]. Nonimaging microconcen-
trators exploit TIR to redistribute the concentrated
sunlight from macroconcentrators, rather than in-
creasing overall concentration. The optical designs
permit widening the metal fingers toward lessening
series resistance losses, which can also finesse the
need for the intricate metallization patterns of some
high-flux cells. Realistic net efficiency gains of
roughly 15% (relative) are achievable in a wide vari-
ety of concentrator cells.
References
1. G. S. Kinsey, M. Haddad, R. R. King, R. A. Sherif and
N. H. Karam, International Conference on Solar
Concentrators for the Generation of Electricity or
Hydrogen, Publ. NREL/CD-520–38172 (National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2005).
2. E. A. Katz, J. M. Gordon, W. Tassew, and D.
Feuermann, J. Appl. Phys. 100, 044514 (2006).
3. Z. I. Alferov and V. D. Rumyantsev, in Next Generation
Photovoltaics, A. Martí and A. Luque, eds. (Institute of
Physics, 2004), Chap. 2.
4. A. W. Bett, in Next Generation Photovoltaics, A. Martí
and A. Luque, eds. (Institute of Physics, 2004), Chap.
4.
5. M. Yamaguchi, K. Araki, and T. Takamoto, in
Concentrator Photovoltaics, A. Luque and V. M.
Andreev, eds. (Springer, 2007), Chap. 15.
6. G. Glenn, Spectrolab Inc., 12500 Gladstone Avenue,
Sylmar, Calif., technical prospectus and private
communications (2005).
7. A. Luque, P. Gidon, M. Pirot, I. Antón, C. Del-Cañizo,
and C. Jausseaud, Prog. Photovoltaics 12, 517 (2004).
8. A. Cuevas, R. A. Sinton, N. E. Midkiff, and R. M.
Swanson, IEEE Electron Device Lett. 11, 6 (1990).
9. T. J. Suleski and R. D. TeKolste, J. Lightwave Technol.
23, 633 (2005).
10. J. Serbin, A. Egbert, A. Ostendorf, B. N. Chichkov, R.
Houbertz, G. Domann, J. Schulz, C. Cronauer, L.
Frohlich, and M. Popall, Opt. Lett. 28, 301 (2003).
11. A. Marcinkeviius, S. Juodkazis, M. Watanabe, M.
Miwa, S. Matsuo, H. Misawa, and J. Nishii, Opt. Lett.
26, 277 (2001).
12. Y. Haruvy, I. Gilath, M. Maniewictz, and N. Eisenberg,
J. Sol-Gel Sci. Technol. 13, 547 (1998).
13. R. Winston, J. C. Miñano, and P. Benítez, Nonimaging
Optics (Elsevier, 2005).
14. R. Winston and J. M. Gordon, Opt. Lett. 30, 2617
(2005).
15. The methods described herein are covered by pending
Israeli patent application 181517, ‘‘Solar cell optical
system,” February 22, 2007.