An overview of crystalline silicon solar cell technology: Past, present, and future

K. Sopian, S. L. Cheow, and S. H. Zaidi

Citation: AIP Conference Proceedings 1877, 020004 (2017); doi: 10.1063/1.4999854

View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4999854
View Table of Contents: http://aip.scitation.org/toc/apc/1877/1
Published by the American Institute of Physics

Articles you may be interested in

Nano-catalysts for upgrading bio-oil: Catalytic decarboxylation and hydrodeoxygenation
AIP Conference Proceedings 1877, 020002 (2017); 10.1063/1.4999852

A new route of synthesizing perovskite nanotubes by templating approach

AIP Conference Proceedings 1877, 030006 (2017); 10.1063/1.4999862

Synthesis graphene layer at different waste cooking palm oil temperatures

AIP Conference Proceedings 1877, 030008 (2017); 10.1063/1.4999864

Preparation of tin oxide quantum dots

AIP Conference Proceedings 1877, 030009 (2017); 10.1063/1.4999865

Graphene and related two-dimensional materials: Structure-property relationships for electronics and
optoelectronics
Applied Physics Reviews 4, 021306 (2017); 10.1063/1.4983646

Role of the Fermi level in the formation of electronic band-tails and mid-gap states of hydrogenated amorphous
silicon in thin-film solar cells
Journal of Applied Physics 122, 093101 (2017); 10.1063/1.4989425
 AN OVERVIEW OF CRYSTALLINE SILICON SOLAR CELL
TECHNOLOGY: PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE

K. Sopian1,a, S.L. Cheow1 , S. H. Zaidi1

1
UKM, 43600, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
a)
Corresponding author: ksopian@eng.ukm.edu.my

Abstract. Crystalline silicon (c-Si) solar cell, ever since its inception, has been identified as the only economically and
environmentally sustainable renewable resource to replace fossil fuels. Performance c-Si based photovoltaic (PV)
technology has been equal to the task. Its price has been reduced by a factor of 250 over last twenty years (from ~ 76
USD to ~ 0.3 USD); its market growth is expected to reach 100 GWP by 2020. Unfortunately, it is still 3-4 times higher
than carbon-based fuels. With the matured PV manufacturing technology as it exists today, continuing price reduction
poses stiff challenges. Alternate manufacturing approaches in combination with thin wafers, low (< 10 x) optical
enhancement with Fresnel lenses, band-gap engineering for enhanced optical absorption, and newer, advanced solar cell
configurations including partially transparent bifacial and back contact solar cells will be required. This paper will
present a detailed, cost-based analysis of advanced solar cell manufacturing technologies aimed at higher (~ 22 %)
efficiency with existing equipment and processes.

Keywords: c-Si, Solar Cell, Photovoltaic

HISTORICAL REVIEW
Since its inception, the crystalline silicon (c-Si) solar cell has been identified as the only long-term sustainable,
environment-friendly, inexpensive renewable energy source to replace fossil fuels. The progress of Si-based
photovoltaic (PV) technology has been equal to the task. It has grown to 55 GW, it dominates 90 % of the market,
and its price reduction record has been enviable (Fig. 1). Its market growth is almost 20-30 % and is estimated to
reach 100 Giga Watt (WP) /year by 2020 [1]. The driving factor in the industrial development of Si PV has been cost
reduction in order to compete with fossil fuels. The cost of manufacturing a solar cell has been reduced from ~ US $
76/WP in 1977 to ~ US $ 0.3/WP in 2015 [2]; this cost is still 3-4 times higher than carbon-based fuels.

(a) (b) (c)

FIGURE 1. PV growth from 2010-2015 (a), Crystalline Si PV market share (b), and reduction in PV module price (c).

Figure 2 describes three basic crystalline Si solar cell configurations [3]. These are differentiated from each other
by the way sunlight exposure creates electron-hole (EH) pairs. In the monofacial solar cell (Fig. 2-a), front surface
metallic grid forms one electrical contact with the rear surface fully metallized serving as the second electrode;

4th International Conference on the Advancement of Materials and Nanotechnology (ICAMN IV 2016)
AIP Conf. Proc. 1877, 020004-1–020004-11; doi: 10.1063/1.4999854
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-1557-7/$30.00

020004-1
almost all solar cells in crystalline Si PV market are based on this configuration. Figure 2 (b) describes the bifacial
solar cell with the emitter on the front and back surface field on the rear; in bifacial solar cell front and back surface

(a) (b) (c)

FIGURE 2. Three basic solar cell configurations, the monofacial with front surface metal grid and silicon exposed to sunlight
(a), bifacial solar cells with identical front and back surface and back surface grids (identical to monofacial solar cell (b), and
back-contact solar cell with front surface Si only exposed to sunlight (c).

metallic grids are identical. Both surfaces have the capability to generate EH pairs. The bifacial solar cell fabrication
process is slightly more involved than the monofacial. In order to achieve high efficiency, these solar cells would
require high minority carrier lifetime. In back-contact solar cell configuration (Fig. 2-c), both negative and positive
electrodes are formed on the rear surface; front surface has no metal grid. Such cells require high minority carrier
lifetime require since the EH pairs have to diffuse to the back surface for collection and generation of external
current. The back-contact solar cell manufacturing process is complicated and requires multiple alignment steps.
The back-contact solar cell represents the highest efficiency in both laboratory and manufacturing; current
highest efficiency record is also held by a back-contact solar cell [4]. Sunpower is the only company that
manufacturers large scale back-contact solar cells with a large scale manufacturing facility in Malaysia. Despite
their high production efficiency (~ 22-24 %), their complicated manufacturing process leads to high manufacturing
costs (estimated at ~ USD 2-2.5/watt). This limits application of back-contact solar cells to niche markets.

Solar Cell Efficiency

Figure 3 plots historical evolution of crystalline silicon solar cell efficiencies starting from 1954. The red
triangles represent experimental data points while the black line represents a linear regression fit to the data, which
predicts that the efficiency will reach a maximum of ~ 26.95 % by the year 2024. The highest efficiency is achieved
by back-contact interdigitated solar cells. This historical efficiency evolution exhibits two distinct trends: the first
part starting from early in fifties that led to an efficiency of ~ 14 % followed by slow rise to 16 % by 1982 and the
second part starting in early eighties where efficiencies rose rapidly to ~ 20 % followed by a slow rise to 25.6 % in
2014. This efficacy improvement record may be better understood by looking at different time frames, i.e., the first

FIGURE 3. Plot of measured crystalline Si solar cell efficiency as a function of time from 1954, red triangles represent measured
data and black line linear regression fit to the data.

020004-2
early phase from 1954 to 1982 and the second phase from 1982 to present. Figure 4 plots the efficiency for these
two time periods along with linear regression fit to the data. The rapid rise in the early phase (Fig. 4-a) could be
attributed in semiconductor process improvements such as surface passivation, contact resistance, and so on. Once
these are optimized, efficiency rise is limited by incremental steps resulting in slow rise in efficiency. However,
starting in early eighties, the rapid rise in efficiency (Fig. 3-b) could not be attributed to processing; instead it was
likely to be improvements in wafer quality resulting in rapid rise of minority carrier lifetimes. From this historical
review of efficiency evolution, it is may be concluded that a third wave of efficiency enhancement, if any, would
likely be related to a fundamental change either in manufacturing technology or perhaps bandgap engineering since
fundamental limits to solar cell efficiency have likely been reached.

(a) (b)

FIGURE 4. Plot of measured crystalline Si as a function of number of years for the early development phase (a) and for the later
phase to the present time (b); black lines represent regression fit to experimental efficiency measurements.

Manufacturing Cost

Figure 5 plots manufacturing cost evolution in industrial production of crystalline Si solar cells. The black line
represents regression fit to the reported data. While there is good agreement between the two, there is significant
divergence in the prices from 2010 onwards. The predicted production cost after 40 years is US $ 1.55/watt in
contrast with prevalent production cost of ~ 0.3 US $/watt. This may not be logically describable since no other
factors relating to Si solar cell value chain have exhibited dramatic improvement. The likely reason is price
manipulation by the largest producers of solar cells aimed at market domination.

FIGURE 5. Historical trend of cost reduction FIGURE 6. Historical trend of wafer thicknesses
in crystalline Si solar cell production. in crystalline Si solar cell manufacturing.
.

020004-3
 Wafer Thickness

Silicon wafer thickness represents 50 % cost of a solar panel [5]. Therefore, cost reduction through reduced Si
usage has been a highly effective approach. Figure 6 plots history of silicon wafer thickness in solar cell
manufacturing. The starting wafer thickness has reduced by about 220 μm from its initial value of 400 μm. The
target of reducing thickness to 150 μm or lower has become difficult to achieve with existing manufacturing
practices due to increasing fragility and thermal mismatch with screen-printed Al paste on the rear surface.
This brief analysis reveals that the existing PV technology has already matured to the point that only incremental
improvements will be achieved in future. The future manufacturing technology will increasingly favor
environmental-friendly and low-energy processes. The monofacial solar cell configuration (Fig. 2-a) will be
replaced by bifacial (Fig. 2-b) and back-contact (Fig. 2-c) variations.

ENVIRONMENT-FRIENDLY SOLAR CELL RESEARCH

At SERI, simple, environment-friendly and inexpensive solar cell manufacturing processes have been developed
through simplification of typical industrial manufacturing process for p-type wafer solar cells described in Fig. 7 [6].
All incoming wafer properties (sheet resistance, lifetime) prior to processing are measured since efficiency of the
solar cell is ultimately limited by its physical properties. In almost all industrial manufacturing, the emitter
formation is accomplished using liquid source POCl3 diffusion. Surface passivation and reflection reduction is
achieved with PECVD deposition of SiN using NH3 (ammonia) and SiH4 (silane) gases. Both of these gases have
toxic effects and are harmful to the environment. In addition, PECVD is often times the most expensive processing
step in terms of equipment, its maintenance, and processing of exhaust gases. This industrial process typically leads
to efficiencies in ~ 16-18 % range. Figure 8 plots the spectral response of a typical 18 % efficiency industrial
crystalline solar cell. The black line represents internal quantum efficiency, red line external, and blue line integrated
surface reflectance. This type of solar cell exhibits almost 100 % internal quantum efficiency with integrated surface
reflectance in the visible spectral region close to 3 %. It has higher reflectance (~ 20 %) in UV region and IR
regions; the higher IR response is due to light escaping the solar cell.

Wafer Damage Removal POCl3

Inspection & Texturing Diffusion

Rapid Thermal Screen Printing PECVD

Annealing Ag & Al SiN

FIGURE 7. Process diagram for industrial FIGURE 8. Internal, external quantum efficiency
manufacturing of crystalline silicon solar cells. and reflectance responses of industrial PECVD
. SiN-passivated, POCl3-diffused reference solar
cell.

Silane-less Solar Cell Manufacturing Process

At SERI, a silane-less solar cell manufacturing process has been developed and is illustrated schematically in
Fig. 9 [7]. In the new process, PECVD SiN step has been replaced by an oxide film grown in-situ during the POCl3
diffusion process.

020004-4
 Wafer Damage Removal POCl3 Diffusion
Inspection & Texturing & In-situ Oxidation

Rapid Thermal Screen Printing

Annealing Ag & Al

FIGURE 9. Process diagram for in-situ-oxidized manufacturing FIGURE 10. Internal, external quantum efficiency and
of crystalline solar cells reflectance measurements of silane-less, in-situ oxide-
passivated, POCl3-diffused solar cell.

An oxidation step is added to the conventional POCl3 diffusion process, the thickness of the oxide is controlled
to achieve blue surface reflectance. Annealing process parameters were optimized to achieve tunneling through
theoxide layers. This new process reduces costs and leads to environment-friendly manufacturing through
elimination of toxic gases and excessive chemical usage; it also eliminates the most expensive equipment in the
manufacturing line. The new process does not require any modification of existing manufacturing process
equipment and processes. Solar cells fabricated with the silane-less process have lower efficiency than the 18 %
industrial solar cell with SiN passivation. This is better illustrated through spectral response measurements plotted in
Fig. 10. The oxide-passivated solar cell has lower (~ 95 %) internal quantum efficiency in the UV-Visible region
with higher (~ 6 %) reflectance in the visible region. These two factors contribute to lower short-circuit current; rest
of the performance reduction can be attributed to lower minority carrier lifetime.

Silane and POCl3 Free Solar Cell Manufacturing Process

The industrial solar cell manufacturing uses toxic POCl3 chemical in emitter formation step. A nontoxic, solar
cell fabrication process has been developed by replacing POCl3 chemical with phosphoric acid [8]. There are several
advantages of this approach: elimination of toxic POCl 3 chemical, in-house synthesis of phosphoric acid diffusion
solution, and lower cost. Fabrication process sequence for this POCl 3-less, Silane-less, oxide-passivated solar cell
has been drawn in Fig. 11. In contrast with the silane-less solar cell processing described in Fig. 9, the POCl3

Wafer Damage Removal Phosphoric

Inspection & Texturing Acid Diffusion

Rapid Thermal Screen Printing Thermal

Annealing Ag & Al Oxidation

FIGURE 11. Process diagram for phosphoric-acid diffused, FIGURE 12. Internal, external quantum efficiency and
thermally-oxidized fabrication of crystalline silicon solar reflectance measurements of thermally-oxidized, phosphoric
cells. acid-diffused solar cell.

diffusion and in-situ oxidation steps have been replaced by two steps: phosphoric acid diffusion and thermal
oxidation. Solar cells fabricated with this new process have exhibited efficiencies similar to that of silane-less solar
cells. The reason for this is illustrated in Fig. 12 which plots spectral response of the phosphoric acid doped solar

020004-5
cell. This cell has lower IQE (~ 90 %) and higher (~ 10 %) reflectance. The lower performance can thus be
attributed to reduced surface passivation and higher reflection.
Finally, Fig. 13 plots the light current-voltage (LIV) response of solar cells fabricated with POCl3 (Fig. 13-a) and
phosphoric acid doped solar cells (Fig. 13-b). The red line in these measurements represents simulation of the LIV
data using commercially available PC1D software [9]; black line is experimental measurement. It is noticed that
good agreement exists between theory and experiment and that the POCl 3-doped efficiency at ~ 16 % is significantly
higher than phosphoric acid at ~ 13 %; the performance reduction is attributed to reduced passivation, poor minority
carrier lifetime, and high reflection losses.

40 35

30

Current Density (mA/cm )

Current Density (mA/cm )

2
2
30 25

20
20
15

10
10
Calculated Efficiency: 16.6 % Calculated Efficiency: 12.84 %
5
Measured Efficiency: 16.2 % Measured fficiency: 13.3 %
0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Voltage (V) Voltage (V)

(a) (b)

FIGURE 13. Light current voltage measurements of POCl3-doped (a) and phosphoric acid-doped (b) solar cells.

Table 1 summarizes key features of the three solar cell manufacturing approaches. Surface texturing processes
are changed to nanoscale surfaces to reduce reflection; although the textures have not yet been fully optimized. SiN
anti-reflection and passivation films have been successfully replaced by oxide passivation, and finally, toxic POCl 3
chemical has been replaced by much more benign phosphoric acid. It is worth noting that phosphoric acid is often
used in foods and soft drinks.

TABLE 1. Comparative evaluation of solar cell manufacturing processes.

Passivation &
Manufacturing
Texturing Diffusion Anti-Reflection Comments
Approach
Film
Industrial Acidic, Alkaline, POCl3 PECVD SiN Commercial Efficiency ~
Microscale Pyramids 16-18 %

In-situ Oxide Nanoscale pyramids POCl3 In-situ Oxide Laboratory Efficiency ~

14-16.5 %
Thermal Oxidation Nanoscale pyramids Phosphoric Thermal Oxide Laboratory Efficiency ~
Acid 14-16.5 %

Back-Contact Solar Cell Research

Interdigitated back-contact solar cell is attractive for many reasons including highest efficiency, coplanar
interconnection for solar panels, and near zero reflection, making it equally desirable for home as well as industrial
environment. Its high cost of manufacturing due to its complex fabrication process remains one of its major barriers
to large scale manufacturing. Key processes in the fabrication process include defining emitter, base, and contact
metallization regions and maintaining dielectric isolation between them. Several photolithography processing steps
are required to accomplish this. The disadvantages of photolithography processing, even if based on screen printing

020004-6
tools, include high cost, low throughput, and alignment precision. Several alternative fabrications techniques
investigated include laser scribing, screen printing diffusion barrier paste, and screen printing diffusion paste have
been investigated with varying degrees of success.
Due to its cost-effectiveness and high throughput, the conventional POCl3-diffusion screen-printing technology,
extensively developed for industrial manufacturing of monofacial, industrial solar cells, is desirable for fabrication
of back-contact solar cells; this process was investigated at SERI to fabricate back-contact solar cell [10-12]. For
back contact solar cells, electrical separation between n+ and p+ regions is required. This can be achieved by two
methods: pre-diffusion barrier or post-diffusion etching to remove diffused layer. At SERI, post-diffusion etching
processes were investigated. Etching of silicon can be carried out using wet-chemical methods based either on acidic
or alkaline chemistries. However, after metal contacts are formed, wet-chemical or plasma etching processes can
degrade metallic contacts. Therefore, XeF2 plasma-less vapor etching for dielectric isolation was investigated. The
XeF2 vapor etching is well known for fabricating MEMS devices such as cantilever tips. XeF2 vapor etching
advantages include extremely high selectivity to Si surface, contactless, dry process and does not required external
source of energy like plasma power to activate [13]. This makes XeF2 an excellent candidate for realization of
screen-printed interdigitated back contact solar cell, and has been investigated. Figure 14 describes the back-contact
solar cell fabrication process. A 200-μm thickness, 12.512.5 cm2 size p-type mono-crystalline wafer with <100>
crystal orientation, base resistivity of 1-3 ohm cm, and lifetime of 10 μsec was used as the starting material. The
wafer was subjected to damage removal etch process, textured and RCA-cleaned prior to formation of n+ emitter in
phosphorous oxytrichloride (POCl3) diffusion furnace. Anti-reflection and surface passivation SiN-film was
deposited on the front surface using PECVD process. This was followed by screen-printing and co-firing of Ag and
Al/Ag contacts using semi-automated screen printing and high temperature conveyor belt furnace. Finally, XeF2
vapor etching was performed on the rear surface to create electrical isolation between the n+ and p+ metallic contact
regions. LIV measurements were performed on the back-contact solar cells as a function of XeF2 vapor etch cycles.
Solar cells fabricated with this process performed poorly. This was attributed

FIGURE 14. Back-contact solar cell fabrication process and dielectric isolation between emitter and base regions.

to lack of passivation and reduced metal contact regions due to excessive isotropic lateral etching clearly seen in the
scanning electron microscope (SEM) picture of etch profile shown in Fig. 15. The efficiency of this solar cell was
estimated at ~ 3.5 %. The low ISC and VOC values are due to existence of parasitic junction, high recombination in
etch region, and un-optimized design of the solar cell geometry. Interestingly, software simulation of a back-contact
solar cell as a function of lifetime in Fig. 16 reveals that with 10-μsec lifetime, the efficiency of the solar cell would
only be ~ 4 %, which is in good agreement with experimental results. These results demonstrate that while a back-
contact solar cell can be fabricated with an industrial process based on conventional industrial methodology, a
substantially better approach is required in order to achieve efficiency approaching 20 %.; such a process is under
development at SERI.

020004-7
 FIGURE 15. Scanning electron microscope picture of the XeF2 vapor-etched back-contact solar cell.

FIGURE 16. Software simulation of a back-contact solar cell as a function of minority carrier lifetime.

Bifacial Solar Cell Research

At SERI, simple bifacial solar cell fabrication process based on processing sequence described in Fig. 17 has
been developed. Principal feature of this process is replacement of high temperature boron diffusion in quartz
furnace by ambient Al back surface field process. Following removal of excess Al, surface is coated with PECVD
SiN and conventional Ag and Al co-firing process [14-16]. Figure 18 plots typical LIV measurements of bifacial
solar cell under identical xenon light source based illumination at approximately 50 % of one sun intensity. Open
circuit voltage (VOC) obtained from the bifacial solar cell was 579 mV and 554 mV for front and back sides
respectively. The current densities were ~ 17 mA/cm2 and ~ 8 mA/cm2 for the front and rear sides; respectively. In
general, for all the solar cells fabricated using this method, the short-circuit current density from the rear surface was
approximately ½ of the front surface. A detailed simulation analysis using surface photo voltage, PC1D and
SILVACO was carried out. The degraded response from the rear surface was attributed to inadequate passivation of
Al-doped surfaces. Ongoing research at SERI is focused on passivation of Al-doped surfaces.

020004-8
 FIGURE 17. Principal semiconductor processing steps during fabrication of Al BSF bifacial solar cell.

(a) (b)
FIGURE 18. Bifacial solar cell LIV response from front (a) and rear (b) surfaces.

LOW CONCENTRATION SOLAR PANEL OUTPUT ENHANCEMENT

Power output of a solar panel is significantly enhanced through geometrical optics mechanism by simply adding
reflectors to direct sunlight to its surface (please see Fig. 19) [17-19]. In its simplest manifestation, four mirrors can
enhance the sunlight concentration to 5 x in comparison with no mirrors (1 x). Commercially available glass mirrors
exhibit ~ 70 % reflection efficiency, therefore, 4 mirrors will achieve sunlight concentration enhancement of 3.8 x.

INCIDENT ILLUMINATION

SOLAR PANEL
FIGURE 19. Solar panel output enhancement using reflective optics.

020004-9
Indoor testing was carried out to evaluate concepts described in Fig. 19. Expanded beam illumination from a high
power dc xenon lamp is folded onto mirrors. Table-2 summarizes optical enhancement data as a function of mirrors.
There is little impact on open-circuit voltage, VOC. In contrast the short-circuit current, ISC, increases significantly as
number of mirrors in increased from 1 to 4; a maximum enhancement of almost 200 % for four mirrors. This is
significantly less than would be expected with predicted 3.8 x concentration of ISC ~ 3.42 A. This can be attributed
to non-uniform intensity distribution of the expanded beam, where intensity drops rapidly away from beam center.

TABLE 2. Indoor ISC and VOC Enhancement with Mirrors

SUMMARY

Crystalline Si PV field, despite its rapid maturity, continues to be rich in innovative device concepts and optical
enhancement approaches. Short term research will be focused on reducing manufacturing cost through thinner
wafers and development of thermal processing methods aimed at elimination of thermal expansion mismatch.
Localized back contacts based on pulsed lasers using pastes, Al foils or evaporated films are likely to replace
conventional screen printing based rapid thermal annealing process [20]. Advanced light harvesting concepts based
on both geometrical optics combined with light tracking of bifacial and back-contact solar cells will become cost
effective and earn larger market share.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Authors would like to acknowledge funding from Malaysian department of education and UKM under
ERGS/1/2013/TK07/UKM/01/1, FRGS/1/2013/TK07/UKM/01/5, PRGS/1/13/TK07/UKM/01/1, AP/1/2013/1,
TRGS/1/2014/UKM/01/11/2, and ETP-2015-001.

REFERENCES

1. http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources/electricity.html.
2. http://www.ren21.net/GSR2014-Renewables-2014-Global-Status-Report-Key- Findings-EN.
3. Fundamentals of solar cells: Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conversion, edited by Alan Fahrenbruch and Richard
H. Bube, Academic Press, Cambridge, 1983.
4. http://www.pvtech.org/news/back_contact_hit_solar_cell_from_panasonic_pushes_efficiency_record_to_25.6.
5. A. Goetzberger, C. Hebling, and H. Schock, Mater. Sci. Eng. R 40, 1-46 (2003).
6. A. G. Aberle, Solar Energy materials & Solar Cells 65, 239-248 (2001).
7. Cheow Siu Leong, Kamaruzzaman Sopian, and Saleem H. Zaidi, Conf. Proc. 39th IEEE PVSC, 2013.
8. C. Voyer, D. Biro, K. Wagner, J. Benick, and R. Preu, Conf. Proc. 21Ist EUPVSEC, 2006.
9. Pc1d.soft112.com.
10. M. K. Mat Desa, M. Y. Sulaiman, Kamaruzzaman Sopian, Suhaila Sepeai1, Ayu Wazira Azhari, and Saleem
H. Zaidi, International Journal of Engineering and Technology, 2014.
11. M. K. Mat Desa, S. Sepeai, A.W. Azhari, K. Sopian, M. Y. Sulaiman, N. Amin, and Saleem H. Zaidi,
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Review Journal, 2016.
12. M. Khairunaz, Suhaila Sepeai, A. W Azhari, K. Sopian, Saleem H. Zaidi, Conf. Proc. 39th IEEE PVSC, 2013.
13. C. Easter and C. B. O’Neal, JOURNAL OF MICROELECTROMECHANICAL SYSTEMS 18, 1054-1061
(2009).

020004-10
14. Suhaila Sepeai, S. L. Cheow, M. Y. Sulaiman, K. Sopian, and Saleem H. Zaidi, Conf. Proc. 39th IEEE PVSC,
2013.
15. P. Ooshaksaraei, K. Sopian, R. Zulkifli, M. A. Alghoul, and Saleem H. Zaidi, International Journal of
Photoenergy, Article ID 465837 (2013).
16. Suhaila Sepeapi, et al., Journal of Energy Technologies and Policy 3 (2013).
17. Ivan Adidharma Audwinto, Chan Hoy Yen, K. Sopian, and Saleem H. Zaidi, Research Journal of Applied
Sciences, Engineering and Technology 11, 873-878 (2015).
18. H. Sylvester, H. Hakan, N. Johan, K. Bjorn, Solar Energy Material & Solar Cell 92, 1347-1351 (2008).
19. El-Ladan, A.H., C.H. Yen, M.H. Ruslan, K. Sopian, and Saleem H. Zaidi, Research Journal of Applied
Sciences, Engineering and Technology 8, 1319-1325 (2014).
20. www.spectra-physics.com/assets/client_files/files/.../SP-AP-20150202_PERC24.pdf.

020004-11