Solar Energy 249 (2023) 233–241

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Solar Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/solener

Module-level direct coupling in PV-battery power unit under realistic

irradiance and load
Uchechi Chibuko a, c, Tsvetelina Merdzhanova a, Daniel Weigand a, Fabian Ezema c,
Solomon Agbo a, b, Uwe Rau a, d, Oleksandr Astakhov a, *
a
IEK5-Photovoltaik, Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, 52425 Jülich, Germany
b
UE, Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, 52425 Jülich, Germany
c
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, 410001 Nsukka, Nigeria
d
Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology, RWTH Aachen University, Mies-van-der-Rohe-Straße 15, 52074 Aachen, Germany

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: A photovoltaic (PV) module, battery and consumer or load is usually tied together by a complex power elec­
PV-battery tronics, including maximum power point tracking (MPPT) device for power coupling to maximize output of the
Power coupling PV modules. At the same time, a typical battery itself can play the role of a power coupling element in addition to
Irradiance
its main energy storage function. In principle, a properly chosen PV-battery pair can maintain a high degree of
Load
Daily cycle
internal power coupling even under variable irradiance and load without MPPT electronics. This option is of
interest for e.g. module-level integration of PV and battery to cope with natural intermittency of a PV module
power output. In this work, we experimentally examine the function of a laboratory scale unit of a 7-cell silicon
heterojunction PV module directly connected to a lithium-ion battery and variable load. The unit is the simplest
PV-battery module representative for detailed study under a series of emulated realistic profiles of irradiance and
power consumption. The directly coupled PV-battery unit shows coupling efficiencies of above 99.8% at high
irradiance and approx. 98% on average through the daily cycle – a value that is comparable to modern MPPT
devices.

1. Introduction potentially advantageous solution (Fagiolari et al., 2022; Vega-Garita

Photovoltaics (PV) has the potential to be a major energy source in
the future (Ram et al., 2019). According to the same report, PV can make
as much as 69 % of total energy generation. At the same time, due to its
intermittent nature, PV requires large amount of storage for power
supply stabilization. Even at present, deployment of PV faces the prob­
lem of the time mismatch between peaks of PV generation and electricity
consumption often referred to as “duck curve” problem (Howlader et al.,
2018; Kosowatz, 2018; Sheha et al., 2020). Application of electro­
chemical batteries as an energy buffer storage is a straightforward so­
lution for this problem of the natural temporal mismatch between PV
generation and electricity demand (Astakhov et al., 2021; Fagiolari
et al., 2022; Howlader et al., 2018; Kosowatz, 2018; Mohanty et al.,
2016; Rana et al., 2022; Sheha et al., 2020; Vega-Garita et al., 2018a, b).
Integration of both PV and battery technologies at PV system level is
very common practice (Rana et al., 2022). Integration of PV and bat­
teries at the PV module level is less explored, challenging, but
et al., 2018a, b). PV modules with sufficient internal energy buffer
will have much smoother power output with wide peaks of generation,
mild power ramps and extended power output during evening and night
hours. Smooth, more predictable module output allows reducing peak
power rating of PV system components, which potentially reduces cost
of the system without loss of its reliability. Extended hours of energy
generation naturally eliminate or reduce the “duck curve” issue. Com­
bination of PV with battery is shown to be beneficial for stability and
efficiency of electrochemical solar fuel production via e.g. water split­
ting (Astakhov et al., 2021; Kin et al., 2022a). Finally, it is suggested that
battery can provide efficient power coupling in addition to the main
storage functionality in direct coupling configuration (Astakhov et al.,
2020; Ayeng’o et al., 2019; Kakimoto and Asano, 2017), where power
coupling refers to the matching of the working point of the PV to its MPP
when connected to the power coupling element (in this case a battery).In
other words power coupling refers to the ability of the whole device to
utilize maximal available power of the PV module. This point is of

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: o.astakhov@fz-juelich.de (O. Astakhov).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2022.11.040
Received 16 September 2022; Received in revised form 16 November 2022; Accepted 24 November 2022
Available online 2 December 2022
0038-092X/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of International Solar Energy Society. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
U. Chibuko et al.
particular interest because PV-battery modules can be internally
matched without maximum power point trackers (MPPT) which is a
very typical component of PV systems (El Fadil and Giri, 2011; Masoum
et al., 2002; Midya et al., 1996; Mohanty et al., 2016; Zavos). A MPPT
device provides high degree of flexibility in PV system design and reli­
able output of PV modules under intermittent irradiance. However, if
battery can provide comparable degree of power coupling, the use of
power electronic in the system can be reduced. In short, the concept of
the module-level integrated PV-battery device holds promise for
simpler, cheaper, more reliable PV systems with highly stable power
output.
Several issues related to performance of the batteries under elevated
temperatures, life and cost of the battery technology are yet to be solved
to realize reliable and affordable PV-battery modules (Vega-Garita et al.,
2019; Vega-Garita et al., 2017; Vega-Garita et al., 2018a, b). However,
battery technology shows rapid progress (Ma et al., 2021) and we
believe that PV-battery integration at module level is a matter of the
nearest future. At the same time, parallel progress in crystalline silicon
technology like silicon heterojunction solar cells (Chime et al., 2022;
Duan et al., 2022; Yoshikawa et al., 2017) as well as multiple emerging
PV technologies, like water-based dye sensitized solar cells (de Haro
et al., 2021; Galliano et al., 2021) or sustainable Perovskite solar cells
(Luo et al., 2022; Schmitz et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022) open new ways
for PV-battery integration at different levels and sizes for indoor (Kin
et al., 2022b) and field applications (Ayeng’o et al., 2019).
In this context, in several of our previous works (Agbo et al., 2016a;
Agbo et al., 2016b; Sandbaumhüter et al., 2017) we addressed feasibility
of PV-battery combinations at different level, with particular focus on
the feasibility of the direct coupling between PV and battery devices,
addressed in detail in our recent theoretical study (Astakhov et al.,
2020).
In this work, the predictions of high efficiency and operation stability
in voltage matched PV-battery system are tested experimentally with
emulated realistic profiles of irradiance and power offtake. The focus of
the study is on stability, internal power conversion efficiency, and losses
in PV-battery combination. In our experiment we study an elementary
PV-battery combination of a Silicon Heterojunction (SHJ) solar cell
minimodule(Lee et al., 2020) directly coupled to a single cell commer­
cial Li-ion battery In most cases battery cells have higher voltages than
solar cells. Several solar cells must be stacked as tandem or connected in
series as a module to match the voltage range of the battery. Commercial
Li-ion batteries typically operate in the voltage range of 3.7–4.3 V which
approximately corresponds to maximum power point voltage of 7 SHJ
cells connected in series. The cycling is realized in a lab experiment
using a pattern of global horizontal irradiance (Zubair et al., 2018) and
load profile (Adeoye and Spataru, 2019) typical for Nigeria urban area.
“Module-level direct coupling” in this paper, refers to a direct connec­
tion of the PV module to a battery without use of power electronics. (not
a physical integration into one device as e.g. in (Agbo et al., 2016a;
Vega-Garita et al., 2018a, b)). As it is shown in the work (Leible and
Bessler, 2021), a directly coupled PV-battery-load unit in real operation
can have significant losses supposedly due to insufficient internal power
coupling. In view of importance of the power coupling issue, in this work
we focus on coupling efficiency or coupling factor in the PV-battery
module and detailed power loss analysis. Experimental performance of
the studied PV-battery module is analyzed in the context of the literature
data on MPPT performance. MPPT units usually show excellent perfor­
mance in tracking MPP with “tracking efficiency” or “MPPT efficiency”
up to 99.8 % (Belhachat and Larbes, 2018; Jiang et al., 2017; Uprety and
Lee, 2014, 2017). The tracking efficiency, however, should be distin­
guished from the energy efficiency, which usually has peak values of
93–96 % (Abu Qahouq et al., 2014; Cao and Kim, 2015; Cooley and
Leeb, 2011; Uprety and Lee, 2014, 2017) due to self-consumption in the
MPPT electronics.
The key performance metrics of the PV-battery unit is the coupling
factor C defined as the ratio between the output power of the PV (PPV) at
234
Solar Energy 249 (2023) 233–241
the actual module working point (WP) and maximum power point
power (PMPP) expressed as C = PPV /PMPP . The coupling factor is there­
fore describing how much of the power available at MPP is harnessed by
a directly coupled unit. Since there is no power consuming electronics
between PV, battery and load in the directly coupled module, the
coupling factor C in this case is compared to available literature data on
the power efficiency of MPPTs (Abu Qahouq et al., 2014; Cao and Kim,
2015; Cooley and Leeb, 2011; Uprety and Lee, 2014, 2017). Results of
the experiment show high potential of the direct coupled module level
PV-battery unit, which shows persistently high performance over real­
istic operation cycle.
2. Experiment
2.1. Measurement circuit
The circuit diagram of a directly coupled PV-battery unit connected
to variable load resistor is shown in Fig. 1(a). This is also the basic circuit
used for the setup of our experiment in the laboratory, as shown in Fig. 1
(b). The load draws direct current (DC) from the PV-battery unit. An
inhouse built connection board was used to realize stable and repro­
ducible current and voltage measurements between the system elements
with minimal voltage drops due to measurement equipment. The board
and connection for the components are shown in supplementary Fig. S1.
Note that there is no power management electronics or energy
management system in the circuit. We address here the simplest com­
bination of PV and battery where battery is expected to play both storage
and power stabilization functions. For the experimental setup, 10 mΩ
sense resistors are connected in series to the PV module and battery, as
shown in Fig. 1(b), which are used for sensing current from the PV and
battery by recording the voltage across the 10 mΩ resistors. This helps to
accurately measure the PV and battery current by minimizing power loss
provided from the conventional approach of connecting digital amme­
ters in series to the circuit. Keithley digital multimeters (DMM) are used
for recording the voltage across the 10 mΩ resistors. The voltage of PV is
recorded by a Keithley SMU 2420 device, while the battery voltage is
recorded by a Keithley SMM 3706A device. Using this approach, the
current and voltage values are obtained to accuracies of ± 0.01 mA and
± 0.01 V respectively, sufficient for our analysis.
Irradiance for PV module has been provided by an AM1.5G class-A
sun simulator from Wacom with PV module installed on the water-
cooled stage of the solar simulator and with temperature of approxi­
mately 25 ◦ C. Due to the constant connection of the PV-battery to the
load, we use the term “PV-battery-load unit” to refer to the setup in the
manuscript.
2.2. PV module, battery and load
The laboratory-scale solar module made up of 7 silicon hetero­
junction (SHJ) cells has been prepared inhouse. The SHJ cells, prepared
according to (Duan et al., 2022) were laser cut and interconnected with
low temperature soldering in shingled configuration as described in (Lee
et al., 2020). Each cell of the PV module has an area of 3.2 cm2 with the
combined active area of the 7-cell module equal to 22.4 cm2. The current
voltage (IV) characteristics of the module measured under different
irradiance from 1 sun to 0.019 sun are presented in Fig. 2. The trail of the
MPP through the different intensities is correspondingly shown with
yellow filled circles. At standard test conditions (STC), the module has
an efficiency of 19.2 %, open circuit voltage (Voc) of 5.03 V, short circuit
current (Isc) of 112 mA, voltage at maximum power point (Vmpp) of
4.22 V, current at maximum power point (Impp) of 101.75 mA and
power at maximum power point (Pmpp) of approx. 430 mW.
The storage battery is represented by a 153040 DNK commercially
available lithium-ion cell with nominal capacity of 110 mAh and nom­
inal voltage of 3.7 V. The battery is a lithium-polymer (LIP) rechargeable
cell which defines the battery chemistry. In order to study power
U. Chibuko et al.
Fig. 1. (a) Circuit diagram of a directly coupled PV-Battery-Load unit; PV connected directly to load and battery without a maximum power point tracking device.
Red arrows indicate PV current and blue arrows indicate battery current. (b) Circuit diagram of experimental setup showing digital voltmeters across sense resistors
for measuring PV current (IPV) and battery current (IB), as well as devices for measuring voltage of the PV module and battery. (For interpretation of the references to
colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Fig. 2. Current-voltage (IV) characteristics of the silicon heterojunction module
measured under different irradiance as indicated for every IV characteristic
(Red lines). Yellow filled circles mark the maximum power point (MPP) of the
PV module. Battery IV characteristics taken at the battery min. charge and
battery max. charge (blue lines). The intersections of the PV and the battery IVs
highlighted with blue closed circles are possible working points (WP) of the PV-
battery combination given by the intersection of the IV characteristics. The
black line represents the common battery + load IV for the load resistance of
14.8 mW per cm2 (77 % of PV 1 sun capability) at the battery SOC ≈ 75 %. (For
interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is
referred to the web version of this article.)
coupling in PV-battery combination, it is instructive to measure also
current voltage characteristics of the battery. Open circuit voltage of any
secondary battery is a function of state of charge, therefore no single IV
can characterize the battery sufficiently. On the other hand, it is
reasonable to evaluate battery IV characteristics under different states of
battery charge to get an indication of the region where the operating
point of the PV-battery combination can be located with respect to the
maximum power point of the PV module. This is important for power
coupling battery to a given PV module. If the region of the battery IV at
minimum and maximum SOC is sufficiently away from the MPP of the
module at different irradiance levels, then a significant amount of power
at MPP will be lost when the battery is connected to the module. The
battery IV characteristics taken at minimal SOC (min charge) and
maximal SOC (max charge) are shown in Fig. 2 together with the PV
235
Solar Energy 249 (2023) 233–241
module IV characteristics. To achieve a minimum SOC for the battery,
the battery is discharged to its minimum rated cut of voltage of 3.0 V.
The maximum SOC is achieved by charging under 1 sun and integrating
the charging current with time (i.e. columbic counting) using the
(∫ ) (∫
expression that SOC [%] = 100⨯ Idt /110. The charged capacity
)
Idt in mAh is divided by the nominal full capacity of 110 mAh and
multiplied by 100 to get the SOC in %. The charging and discharge
voltage versus SOC plot for 1C rate is shown in supplementary Fig. S2
which shows an operating voltage window of 3.0–4.54 V for the battery.
From Fig. 2, the slope of the battery IV characteristics at the minimum
and maximum SOC is − 1.03 A/V and − 1.02 A/V, respectively. Note that
the slope of the battery IV plots remained approximately same under
these extremes of SOC. Overall, the cell used in the study like many other
modern commercial battery cells shows very stable linear IVs with
constant slope within the nominal range of application conditions (state
of charge and currents). One side effect of the direct coupling is potential
leakage of the battery charge through the forward biased PV module in
the dark. Detectable leakage current through the PV module was
recorded only at illuminations less than 0.053 sun for high battery SOC.
This recorded back flow of current at extremely low illumination and
ultimately in the dark is generally referred to as dark current (Id) for the
simplest case of the directly coupled unit. This dark current loss can be
omitted using a blocking diode.
The effect of the load was emulated with a manually operated Bourns
3680 Precision Potentiometer/variable resistor of 10–1000 Ohms. We
emulated power consumption in the range of 0.54 mW to 14.8 mW per
cm2 of PV module, where the upper power corresponds to the 77 % of
the PV capability under standard test conditions (1 sun, AM1.5). Com­
mon battery and load IV characteristic is represented by the black line in
Fig. 2. This common battery-load IV characteristic is taken at 75 % SOC
with the resistor set at a power consumption of approximately 14.8 mW
per cm2 (77 % of PV 1 sun capability). Note that the black IV has nearly
same slope as the battery IV. This is because the steep slope of the bat­
tery IV dominates the IV characteristic of PV-Battery-Load combination
for the whole range of practically relevant load powers.
2.3. Irradiance and power consumption profiles
The relevance of the study for field PV applications is based on the
realistic irradiance and power usage profiles. The blue curve in Fig. 3(a)
shows the global horizontal irradiance profile (Zubair et al., 2018) used
as a reference to the laboratory experiment. This shows the variation of
solar irradiance throughout a typical day time for a hot climate region,
having peaks of solar irradiance between 12 and 2 pm in the afternoon.
For a simple case of realistic profiles, we do not consider shading, clouds,
rain or other adverse weather effects on the solar irradiance. The
reference load consumption pattern for Nigeria urban area is also shown
(Adeoye and Spataru, 2019). Both profiles have been reproduced in the
laboratory experiment with stepped profiles shown in Fig. 3(b).
U. Chibuko et al.
Fig. 3. (a) Reference profiles of global horizontal irradiance and load vs time from the literature (Adeoye and Spataru, 2019; Zubair et al., 2018), (b) Discrete step
profiles of the irradiance and load current reproducing the real time profiles in the laboratory experiment over a scaled down period of 6.4 h.
2.4. Characterization of the unit under variable irradiance, battery state
of charge and load power.
In the experiment, the PV module, battery and load were connected
in parallel as shown in the circuit diagram from Fig. 1.
Before the cycling of the PV-battery-load unit under reproduced
realistic patterns presented in Fig. 3(b), the unit is characterized for
isolated effects of irradiance, battery SOC and load on the power
coupling. For this purpose, the effect of irradiance at different battery
SOC on the power coupling factor was studied. The solar simulator
irradiance was varied using neutral density filters from 0.053 sun to 1
sun with working points recorded to evaluate coupling factor (C) at
different state of charge. In order to minimize effect of SOC drift, the
measurement at every irradiance has been reduced to approx. 12 s,
which results in negligible battery charging even at the highest irradi­
ance. As part of the unit characterization, the effect of the load power on
the coupling factor has also been studied under different irradiance at
constant SOC of approximately 75 %. At this intermediate SOC, power
consumption was varied by variation of the load resistor from 43 Ω to
1000 Ω for each irradiance level from 0.053 sun to 1 sun. Working points
recorded at every irradiance are combined with the previously recorded
maximum power points to evaluate the coupling factor C.
2.5. Cycling procedure
Realistic operation cycle of irradiance presented with blue profile in
Fig. 3(a) has been reproduced with stepwise attenuation of the solar
simulator irradiance. As it is illustrated with blue profile in Fig. 3(b) the
cycle starts from 0.1 sun at the beginning of the cycle and increased
stepwise up to a maximum of 1 sun followed by a stepwise reduction till
complete darkness. The time interval for each step was 16 min, which
emulates the operating conditions for 1 h in a real-life situation from the
reference data. Simultaneously, the variable resistor was varied in the
range of 121–545 Ω to suit the load pattern in the reference profile, as it
is shown with black profile in Fig. 3(b). Each operating cycle was for 6.4
h and was carried out for 6 consecutive cycles, corresponding to a total
of 38.4 h of laboratory time, representing 6 days of real-time system
236
Solar Energy 249 (2023) 233–241
operation.
As highlighted from the components of the setup, the detectable
leakage current through the PV at extremely low irradiance and in the
dark, referred to as dark current, was present during the cycling
experiment. Therefore, the dark current was blocked by an “ideal diode”
assembly in one experimental run involving two cycles with a shorter
time interval of 2.3 h per cycle.
3. Results
3.1. Characterization of the unit: Effect of irradiance, battery state of
charge and load on coupling factor
Prior to exposing the unit to realistic profiles of irradiance and load
and periodic cycling over the realistic profiles, the dependence of
coupling factor on solar irradiance, battery SOC and load power was
characterized separately.
The dependence of coupling factor on the battery SOC and irradiance
in PV-battery connection/subunit without load is shown in the colour
map in Fig. 4(a). The coupling factor (C) was greater than 0.9 for illu­
minations above 0.1 sun and for the whole range of the battery SOC. In
other words, the PV-battery connection maintains very high-power
coupling for the whole relevant energy generation range. C generally
drops with decrease in irradiance and at the highest battery SOC (close
to 100 %).
Fig. 4(b) shows coupling in the PV-Battery subunit connected to the
load as a function of irradiance and load power at approximately con­
stant battery SOC (75 %). A dashed diagonal line in Fig. 4(b) represents
the conditions where PV power (PPV) equals load power (PL), i.e., all PV
generated power is consumed in the load and neither charging nor
discharging of the battery takes place. In the region above the line, PPV
> PL and excess power charges the battery (battery charging conditions).
In the region below the line, PPV < PL and the deficiency of PV power is
covered by the battery discharge (battery discharging conditions). In the
real conditions PV-Battery-Load system navigates between the charging
region in the peak PV generation hours and discharge region under low
irradiance. The same effect can have highly demanding load operating
U. Chibuko et al.
Fig. 4. (a) Coupling factor of the directly coupled PV-Battery subunit as a
function of battery SOC and irradiance. (b) Coupling factor for the PV-Battery-
Load unit at ~ 75 % battery SOC with varying load power under different PV
power before running realistic profiles. The dashed blue diagonal line drawn for
PPV = PL. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the
reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
in pulsed mode. It can be clearly seen in Fig. 4(b) that PV-Battery-Load
unit stays highly coupled (C greater than 0.9) over very wide range of PV
power and load power even for conditions with load demand several
times higher than the power generated by PV. This is the stabilizing,
coupling effect of the battery, where the battery is crucial for the
operation of the directly coupled PV-Battery-Load unit.
3.2. Cycling of the unit under realistic irradiance and load profiles
The results from the cycling experiment of the realistic profiles are
shown in Figs. 5 and 6. The module level unit of PV-Battery-Load
combination has been exposed to 6 cycles. The first cycle is zoomed
into in Fig. 5 for a better visualization of the behavior of the unit. The
rest of the profiles are essentially the same and no significant deviations
in the behavior of the unit have been observed. Therefore, time scale for
the rest 5 cycles is compressed in Fig. 5.
Fig. 5(a) shows the current profiles of the PV-Battery-Load unit under
periodic cycling. The convention used in the plot is that negative current
values imply a net-release of current, while positive current values imply
a net-receipt of current.
With focus on the first cycle, the PV current and load current both
follow the emulated irradiance and consumption profiles. The load
profile taken from (Adeoye and Spataru, 2019) has a valley during the
237
Solar Energy 249 (2023) 233–241
Fig. 5. (a) Current profile of performed realistic cycles of the PV-Battery-Load
unit against time. (b) Coupling factor against time. (c) Battery state of charge
against time.
Fig. 6. (a) Battery capacity against time for cycling experiment. (b) Battery
voltage against time.
daytime and most of the generated power is stored in the battery as
evidenced by the positive battery current.
The beginning of the dark period shows high battery discharge cur­
rent driving the load in the dark with load current having maximum
values corresponding to high demand. A slight decrease of PV current
through the dark period is also noticed. This implies a back flow of
current from the battery to the forward biased PV module in the dark, as
previously highlighted from the battery IV characteristics discussed
from Fig. 2.
The coupling factor C, over the time of the experiment, is shown in
Fig. 5(b). We observed C close to 100 % for the periods of the most
significant PV power generation. A significant drop of the coupling
factor down to about 50 % is only observed at extremely low irradiance
of 0.053 sun just before complete darkness.
The progression of the battery SOC is shown in Fig. 5(c). As previ­
(∫ )
ously highlighted, the SOC by columbic counting = 100⨯ Idt /110.
The charged/discharged capacity
(∫ )
Idt in mAh is divided by the
nominal full capacity of 110 mAh and multiplied by 100 to get the SOC
in %. The curve is smooth in contrast to other stepped profiles because
SOC is essentially a result of the battery current integration. The battery
U. Chibuko et al.
state of charge increases in the beginning of the day cycle till the
“evening” when reduction of the PV generation and the increase in of the
power consumption is covered by the battery energy. The battery is
cycled from minimum to maximum capacity on purpose even though
this is not recommended for real applications to help sustain battery life.
However, a full charge and discharge of the battery is used for our
experiment to help mirror extreme cases of usage common to household
applications. This provides a larger range of battery voltage for the PV-
Battery conditions for evaluation of coupling factor instead of a rela­
tively lower voltage range in a case where the battery is not fully
charged or discharged. This therefore gives a good insight for real
conditions where full charge and discharge of the battery might be the
case. All cycles taken together show a tendency for SOC to drift to higher
values. This drift results to having the final two cycles show SOC to be a
bit greater than 100 % with a peak of 108.7 % corresponding to 119.6
mAh reached for the final cycle. This drift can be related either to charge
accumulation or loss of charge in the battery. In order to distinguish
between these two cases, it is instructive to consider the profiles of
battery capacity and voltage shown in Fig. 6. Note that the battery rated
nominal capacity is 110 mAh (at 0.5C rate of discharge). It is evident in
Fig. 6(a) that capacity increases with a slope of 4.1 mAh per cycle (24.86
mAh for 6 cycles). At the same time, the maxima of the battery voltage
stay very stable at 4.35 V for all cycles. This persistent voltage behavior
indicates that the drift of capacity is not related to charge accumulation
and mostly related to Faradaic losses in the battery. If the whole capacity
drift is attributed to the charge loss and not charge accumulation, which
would lead to a drift of the battery voltage, the Faradaic efficiency of the
battery of approximately 96 % is calculated.
An illustrative representation of the performance of the unit in a
cycling experiment can be obtained if coupling factor is presented as a
function of PV and load powers PPV and PL. The data of the cycling
experiment presented in Fig. 5 is presented as a colour plot in Fig. 7,
showing dependence of coupling factor on varying PV power and load
power similar to the plot in Fig. 4(b). The clusters of black dots show the
actual operating points of the PV-Battery-Load unit during the cycling
experiment. Colour map is an interpolation of the coupling factor be­
tween the operating points. Unlike Fig. 4(b), the map in Fig. 7 visualizes
the region of operation of the unit in realistic cycle. It is characteristic for
the unit to operate at high PV power having low power demand from the
Fig. 7. Coupling factor for the realistic cycling experiment. Dashed blue line
represents the PV and load power balance conditions, where PPV = PL. The
cluster of black dot represents the PV working point (WP) showing the regions
of operation of the unit during the experiment. (For interpretation of the ref­
erences to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version
of this article.)
238
Solar Energy 249 (2023) 233–241
load, while at low PV power range the load power is wide. The dashed
line is also drawn for PPV = PL, the critical power utilization conditions.
Above the line, the PV power is higher than the power consumption and
excess power is collected in the battery. Below the line the deficiency of
the PV power is covered by the battery discharge power. As well as in the
time scale presentation in Fig. 5, the colour plot in Fig. 7 clearly shows
that the unit maintains high power coupling for the most relevant region
of significant PV generation, which ensures high overall efficiency even
without maximum power point tracking.
3.3. Energy and efficiency in PV-Battery-Load unit in cycling experiment
Evaluation of the performance of the unit in terms of energy effi­
ciency requires analysis of the energy profiles for different components
of the unit. To do so, the data on power of the elements of the unit are
∫
integrated with respect to time ( Pdt). The results are shown in Fig. 8.
The blue line at the apex of the plots shows the potentially obtainable
final energy provided the PV module is always at MPP – ideal power
coupling conditions. The black line shows the energy generated by the
PV module. From the start of the experiment (t = 0), the black line (PV
energy) increases as the experiment goes on and intermittently flattens
out during the dark periods. The difference between the PV energy and
MPP energy is the total energy loss related to coupling (C-Loss) – the
difference between ideal coupling and coupling in the experiment. En­
ergy profiles in Fig. 8 confirm very high coupling performance of the
directly connected PV-Battery-Load unit in realistic experiment. Final
coupling efficiency is 98.2 %.
The red line shows the integral of the power generated by PV module
taken together with the energy dissipated by the module during the dark
due to the dark current in forward biased operation. The difference
between the final values of the energy generated by PV (black line)
minus the energy shown by the red line gives the total energy lost to dark
current (Id-Loss). The dark current caused approximately 4.4 % loss of
the total generated energy, which is equivalent to 4.2 % of the energy at
MPP (EMPP).
The purple line shows the energy consumed by the load. This energy
Fig. 8. Energy evolution with time - profiles of energy generation and con­
sumption in the different components of the unit. Percentage energy (E) losses
with respect to MPP energy are shown in yellow cases. EMPP is energy at
maximum power. EPV is energy of the photovoltaic module. EPVdark is energy
dissipated by the PV module during the dark. ELoad is energy of the load. EBattery
is energy of the battery. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this
figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
U. Chibuko et al.
as expected increases from the beginning of the experiment till the end
of the experiment with steeper slopes noticeable at the dark periods
matching higher load demand during these periods, as seen from the
performed experiment. The difference between the final value of the red
line (PV energy + dark current loss) and the purple line of the load
energy gives internal energy losses in the unit related to the battery and
wiring/resistance – internal losses in the unit beyond PV module, as
shown in Fig. 8. The wiring loss was equal to 4.2 % of energy at MPP and
was obtained by subtracting the energy lost to the battery from the total
internal energy losses.
Green line in Fig. 8 shows the battery energy. The energy of the
battery oscillates; rising during charging and falling during discharging.
The baseline of the oscillating battery energy profile with a slope of 38
mWh per cycle (226 mWh for the 6 cycles) is related to the losses in the
battery as no significant charge accumulation has been observed (see
Fig. 6 and related description). The energy loss to the battery was
approximately equal to 7.2 % of the energy at MPP. This loss in the
battery has two components – Faradaic losses related to the loss of
charge and potential or voltage losses related to the charge–discharge
overpotentials (Ernst et al., 2019; Kasnatscheew et al., 2016). The bat­
tery energy roundtrip efficiency with respect to energy supplied to the
battery in our experiment was approximately 91 %. Taking into account
Faradaic efficiency of 96 %, the voltage efficiency of the battery is
approximately 95 % in our experiment, assuming that roundtrip effi­
ciency is a product of the voltage and Faradaic efficiencies.
The integral total energy efficiency calculated as a ratio of the load
energy to MPP energy amounts to approx. 82.5 %.
4. Discussion
Results of the experiments with isolated effects of irradiance and
load power show very good coupling factor C (above 0.9) for illumina­
tions above 0.1 sun and for all SOC of the battery (see Fig. 4). The
coupling factor generally decreases at low solar irradiance and also
drops at high battery SOC (close to 100 %), showing that the best SOC
for harnessing maximum power from the PV is at low/ intermediate
battery SOC in the studied device. This is because, at maximum battery
SOC, PV module working point drifts further away from MPP, especially
at lower solar irradiance in our PV-battery unit. The load does not have
any significant impact on the coupling factor when battery is present, at
least for the cases when load energy consumption is approximately
balanced with PV energy production over the daily cycle. Therefore,
with regards to varying load conditions, the battery acts as an efficient
coupling element.
In the cycling experiment shown in Fig. 5, the unit demonstrates very
high coupling in the most relevant range of power generating condi­
tions, which results in cumulative coupling efficiency of 98.23 % at the
end of the experiment. This is an excellent result, which can be
compared to best MPP solutions from literature with MPP power effi­
ciency of 93–96 % (Abu Qahouq et al., 2014; Cao and Kim, 2015; Cooley
and Leeb, 2011; Uprety and Lee, 2014, 2017).
Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 show a successful unaided operation of the directly
coupled PV-battery load unit under realistic conditions with a good
stability noticeable from the plot for battery SOC. The unit tends to keep
stable cycling behavior, which is evidenced by the time profile of the
battery voltage in Fig. 6.
The unaided operation is the key point of the study and implies that
there is no power electronics nor energy management system involved.
The flow of energy is naturally governed by the balance between the
generation of the PV module on the one hand and load resistance of the
other with storage in between. The stabilizing and power coupling effect
of the battery is related to the operating voltage stabilization due to
steep battery IV. Whenever voltage is increasing exceeds VOC of the
battery at high PV generation, the battery starts charging, and dis­
charging when the voltage is slightly lower than the battery VOC. For
the load it means nearly constant operating voltage. The power
239
Solar Energy 249 (2023) 233–241
consumed by the load is almost entirely governed by the load resistance,
very similar to the stable electric grid.
With a total efficiency of approximately 82.5 %, it is shown that in-
between the MPP energy and the load energy there are losses to
coupling, Id (PV dark current), wiring and battery, as shown in Fig. 8.
The losses due to Id - the dark current loss, can be eliminated using
blocking diode. However, we intentionally omitted any blocking ele­
ments in the main experiment to observe the magnitude of this dark
current loss. Blocking diodes typically have noticeable forward voltage
drops which causes energy loss especially during high energy generation
periods. The dark loss without diode must be compared to the diode loss
to evaluate usefulness of the blocking diode in the PV-battery device.
Alternatively, an “ideal diode” circuit emulating diode function with
negligible forward voltage drop can be used. For this purpose, an ideal
diode circuit was tested successfully for one experimental run. The loss
due to the Id was eliminated.
Battery and wiring losses are always inherent to the systems with or
without MPP tracking devices. These losses are battery technology
specific and in the context of PV-battery modules also depend on the
capacity per unit area of a PV device (Astakhov et al., 2020).
Overall design of the directly coupled PV-battery device has two
primary aspects: voltage matching and mutual scaling of PV and battery
components. Both aspects must be addressed considering utilization
scenario and degree of autonomy of the designed system (Astakhov
et al., 2020). To achieve proper voltage matching, the battery operating
voltage range must overlap closely with the range of the PV maximum
power point voltages. For each utilization scenario MPP voltages for the
major energy generation conditions should be taken. Example of this
kind of analysis and optimization is given in the work of (Ayeng’o et al.,
2019).
Scaling of the PV and battery components can be expressed as a PV-
specific battery capacity, or capacity per unit area of the PV device. This
capacity depends on the insolation, PV-efficiency, targeted degree of
autonomy, and PV-specific power consumption (Astakhov et al., 2020).
Considering possible variability of all mentioned factors there is a range
of solutions. We expect that utilization of PV-battery devices is mean­
ingful once the battery can store at least the energy produced during one
full sun hour. This requirement for Li-ion cell (approx. 4 V) and PV ef­
ficiency of 20 % results in approx. 50 Ah/m2 (m2 refers to the area of PV
module) under one standard sun.
Issues concerning adverse conditions on the unit such as rain, cloud,
varying temperature of PV module through the daily cycles and shading
are not covered in this paper and could be the focus of further research.
The size of the unit could also increase the energy losses from different
components of the unit and could be an interesting study to see how the
energy losses scales with size for further studies.
5. Conclusion
In our work we experimentally studied power coupling and energy
efficiency in a directly coupled PV-battery module exposed to realistic
cycles of irradiance and power consumption. We experimentally verified
theoretical predictions of directly coupled PV-battery module to main­
tain high internal power coupling even under variable irradiance and
load without MPPT electronics. The experiment was carried out with a
laboratory scale unit of a 7-cell silicon heterojunction PV module
directly connected to a lithium-ion battery and variable load.
The directly coupled PV-battery unit demonstrates stable and effi­
cient operation with average coupling efficiency over 98 % and approx.
100 % at high irradiance, which is comparable or better than reported
MPPT solutions considering self-consumption in the power electronics.
The high degree of coupling is related to the voltage stabilizing function
of the battery, which makes it an effective coupling element in addition
to its storage function. High degree of coupling is maintained even in the
periods when load power is significantly higher than PV power – the
case relevant for pulsed consumption. At the same time, in the case of
U. Chibuko et al.
simplest direct connection some fraction of battery energy gets lost via
dark current in PV module at night. This loss of approx. 4.4 % in our case
can be eliminated with use of blocking diode circuit. Other losses related
to battery and wiring, are common for systems with or without MPPT
devices.
We believe that, depending on the scale and architecture of the PV
system with batteries, direct coupling can be viable or even preferable
option from the efficiency, cost, reliability or simplicity points of view.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgment
The German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) is
acknowledged for funding the YESPV-NIGBEN -African CLIENT II proj­
ect (BMBF Förderkennzeichen 03SF0576A-B) under which this research
was conducted. The authors would like to thank the silicon hetero­
junction solar cell baseline; Alain Doumit for the wafer texture and
cleaning; Silke Lynen, Volker Lauterbach, Andreas Mück for PECVD
deposition; Hildegard Siekmann for the ITO sputtering; and Dr. Kaining
Ding, Dr. Andreas Lambertz and Dr. Weiyuan Duan for scientific sup­
port. The authors would also like to acknowledge the contribution of
Christoph Zahren for technical support, software support and guidance.
Thomas Birrenbach is also acknowledged for his contribution to the
encapsulation of the 7-cell SHJ module.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.solener.2022.11.040.
References
Abu Qahouq, J.A., Jiang, Y., Orabi, M., 2014. MPPT Control and Architecture for PV
Solar Panel with Sub-Module Integrated Converters. J. Power Electron. 14 (6),
1281–1292.
Adeoye, O., Spataru, C., 2019. Modelling and forecasting hourly electricity demand in
West African countries. Appl. Energy 242, 311–333.
Agbo, S.N., Merdzhanova, T., Yu, S., Tempel, H., Kungl, H., Eichel, R.-A., Rau, U.,
Astakhov, O., 2016a. Development towards cell-to-cell monolithic integration of a
thin-film solar cell and lithium-ion accumulator. J. Power Sources 327, 340–344.
Agbo, S.N., Merdzhanova, T., Yu, S., Tempel, H., Kungl, H., Eichel, R.-A., Rau, U.,
Astakhov, O., 2016b. Photoelectrochemical application of thin-film silicon triple-
junction solar cell in batteries. Physica Status Solidi (a) 213 (7), 1926–1931.
Astakhov, O., Merdzhanova, T., Kin, L.-C., Rau, U., 2020. From room to roof: How
feasible is direct coupling of solar-battery power unit under variable irradiance? Sol.
Energy 206, 732–740.
Astakhov, O., Agbo, S.N., Welter, K., Smirnov, V., Rau, U., Merdzhanova, T., 2021.
Storage batteries in photovoltaic–electrochemical device for solar hydrogen
production. J. Power Sources 509, 230367.
Ayeng’o, S.P., Axelsen, H., Haberschusz, D., Sauer, D.U., 2019. A model for direct-
coupled PV systems with batteries depending on solar radiation, temperature and
number of serial connected PV cells. Sol. Energy 183, 120–131.
Belhachat, F., Larbes, C., 2018. A review of global maximum power point tracking
techniques of photovoltaic system under partial shading conditions. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 92, 513–553.
Cao, G., Kim, H.-J., 2015. A novel analog maximum power point tracker for low-cost and
low-power distributed PV systems. IEEJ Trans. Electr. Electron. Eng. 10 (4),
474–478.
Chime, U., Wolf, L., Buga, V., Weigand, D., Gad, A., Köhler, J., Lambertz, A., Duan, W.,
Ding, K., Merdzhanova, T., 2022. How Thin Practical Silicon Heterojunction Solar
Cells Could Be? Experimental Study under 1 Sun and under Indoor Illumination.
Solar RRL 6 (1), 2100594.
Cooley, J.J., Leeb, S.B., 2011. Per panel photovoltaic energy extraction with multilevel
output DC-DC switched capacitor converters, 2011 Twenty-Sixth Annual IEEE
Applied Power Electronics Conference and Exposition (APEC). pp. 419-428.
de Haro, J.C., Tatsi, E., Fagiolari, L., Bonomo, M., Barolo, C., Turri, S., Bella, F.,
Griffini, G., 2021. Lignin-based polymer electrolyte membranes for sustainable
aqueous dye-sensitized solar cells. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 9 (25), 8550–8560.
240
Solar Energy 249 (2023) 233–241
Duan, W., Lambertz, A., Bittkau, K., Qiu, D., Qiu, K., Rau, U., Ding, K., 2022. A route
towards high-efficiency silicon heterojunction solar cells. Prog. Photovolt. 30 (4),
384–392.
El Fadil, H., Giri, F., 2011. Climatic sensorless maximum power point tracking in PV
generation systems. Control Eng. Pract. 19 (5), 513–521.
Ernst, S., Heins, T.P., Schlüter, N., Schröder, U., 2019. Capturing the current-
overpotential nonlinearity of lithium-ion batteries by nonlinear electrochemical
impedance spectroscopy (NLEIS) in charge and discharge direction. Front. Energy
Res. 7, 151.
Fagiolari, L., Sampò, M., Lamberti, A., Amici, J., Francia, C., Bodoardo, S., Bella, F.,
2022. Integrated energy conversion and storage devices: Interfacing solar cells,
batteries and supercapacitors. Energy Storage Mater. 51, 400–434.
Galliano, S., Bella, F., Bonomo, M., Giordano, F., Grätzel, M., Viscardi, G., Hagfeldt, A.,
Gerbaldi, C., Barolo, C., 2021. Xanthan-based hydrogel for stable and efficient quasi-
solid truly aqueous dye-sensitized solar cell with cobalt mediator. Solar Rrl 5 (7),
2000823.
Howlader, H.O.R., Sediqi, M.M., Ibrahimi, A.M., Senjyu, T., 2018. Optimal thermal unit
commitment for solving duck curve problem by introducing CSP, PSH and demand
response. IEEE Access 6, 4834–4844.
Jiang, J.-A., Su, Y.-L., Kuo, K.-C., Wang, C.-H., Liao, M.-S., Wang, J.-C., Huang, C.-K.,
Chou, C.-Y., Lee, C.-H., Shieh, J.-C., 2017. On a hybrid MPPT control scheme to
improve energy harvesting performance of traditional two-stage inverters used in
photovoltaic systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 69, 1113–1128.
Kakimoto, N., Asano, R., 2017. Linear operation of photovoltaic array with directly
connected lithium-ion batteries. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 8 (4), 1647–1657.
Kasnatscheew, J., Rodehorst, U., Streipert, B., Wiemers-Meyer, S., Jakelski, R.,
Wagner, R., Laskovic, I.C., Winter, M., 2016. Learning from overpotentials in lithium
ion batteries: a case study on the LiNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2 (NCM) cathode.
J. Electrochem. Soc. 163 (14), A2943.
Kin, L.-C., Astakhov, O., Lee, M., Haas, S., Ding, K., Merdzhanova, T., Rau, U., 2022a.
Batteries to Keep Solar-Driven Water Splitting Running at Night: Performance of a
Directly Coupled System. Solar RRL.
Kin, L.-C., Liu, Z., Astakhov, O., Shcherbachenko, S., Kungl, H., Kirchartz, T., Eichel, R.-
A., Rau, U., Merdzhanova, T., 2022b. Efficient indoor light harvesting with
CH3NH3Pb (I0. 8Br0. 2) 3 solar modules and sodium-ion battery. Cell Reports Phys.
Sci. 101123.
Kosowatz, J., 2018. Energy Storage Smooths the Duck Curve. Mech. Eng. 140 (06),
30–35.
Lee, M., Ding, X., Banerjee, S., Krause, F., Smirnov, V., Astakhov, O., Merdzhanova, T.,
Klingebiel, B., Kirchartz, T., Finger, F., Rau, U., Haas, S., 2020. Bifunctional
CoFeVOx Catalyst for Solar Water Splitting by using Multijunction and
Heterojunction Silicon Solar Cells. Adv. Mater. Technol. 5 (12), 2000592.
Leible, V., Bessler, W.G., 2021. Passive hybridization of photovoltaic cells with a lithium-
ion battery cell: An experimental proof of concept. J. Power Sources 482, 229050.
Luo, H., Li, P., Ma, J., Han, L., Zhang, Y., Song, Y., 2022. Sustainable Pb Management in
Perovskite Solar Cells toward Eco-Friendly Development. Adv. Energy Mater. 12
(30), 2201242.
Ma, J., Li, Y., Grundish, N.S., Goodenough, J.B., Chen, Y., Guo, L., Peng, Z., Qi, X.,
Yang, F., Qie, L., Wang, C.-A., Huang, B., Huang, Z., Chen, L., Su, D., Wang, G.,
Peng, X., Chen, Z., Yang, J., He, S., Zhang, X., Yu, H., Fu, C., Jiang, M., Deng, W.,
Sun, C.-F., Pan, Q., Tang, Y., Li, X., Ji, X., Wan, F., Niu, Z., Lian, F., Wang, C.,
Wallace, G.G., Fan, M., Meng, Q., Xin, S., Guo, Y.-G., Wan, L.-J., 2021. The 2021
battery technology roadmap. J. Phys. D Appl. Phys. 54 (18), 183001.
Masoum, M.A., Dehbonei, H., Fuchs, E.F., 2002. Theoretical and experimental analyses
of photovoltaic systems with voltageand current-based maximum power-point
tracking. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 17 (4), 514–522.
Midya, P., Krein, P.T., Turnbull, R.J., Reppa, R., Kimball, J., 1996. Dynamic maximum
power point tracker for photovoltaic applications, PESC Record. 27th Annual IEEE
Power Electronics Specialists Conference. IEEE, pp. 1710-1716.
Mohanty, P., Muneer, T., Gago, E.J., Kotak, Y., 2016. Solar radiation fundamentals and
PV system components, Solar Photovoltaic System Applications. Springer, pp. 7-47.
Ram, M., Bogdanov, D., Aghahosseini, A., Gulagi, A., Oyewo, A., Child, M., Caldera, U.,
Sadovskaia, K., Farfan, J., Barbosa, L., 2019. Global energy system based on 100%
renewable energy–power, heat, transport and desalination sectors. Study by
Lappeenranta University of Technology and Energy Watch Group, Lappeenranta,
Berlin.
Rana, M.M., Uddin, M., Sarkar, M.R., Shafiullah, G.M., Mo, H., Atef, M., 2022. A review
on hybrid photovoltaic – Battery energy storage system: Current status, challenges,
and future directions. J. Storage Mater. 51.
Sandbaumhüter, F., Agbo, S.N., Tsai, C.-L., Astakhov, O., Uhlenbruck, S., Rau, U.,
Merdzhanova, T., 2017. Compatibility study towards monolithic self-charging power
unit based on all-solid thin-film solar module and battery. J. Power Sources 365,
303–307.
Schmitz, F., Lago, N., Fagiolari, L., Burkhart, J., Cester, A., Polo, A., Prato, M.,
Meneghesso, G., Gross, S., Bella, F., 2022. High open-circuit voltage Cs2AgBiBr 6
carbon-based perovskite solar cells via green processing of ultrasonic spray-coated
carbon electrodes from waste tire sources. ChemSusChem.
Sheha, M., Mohammadi, K., Powell, K., 2020. Solving the duck curve in a smart grid
environment using a non-cooperative game theory and dynamic pricing profiles.
Energ. Conver. Manage. 220, 113102.
Uprety, S., Lee, H., 2014. 23.6 A 43V 400mW-to-21W global-search-based photovoltaic
energy harvester with 350μs transient time, 99.9% MPPT efficiency, and 94% power
efficiency, 2014 IEEE International Solid-State Circuits Conference Digest of
Technical Papers (ISSCC). IEEE, pp. 404-405.
Uprety, S., Lee, H., 2017. 22.5 A 93%-power-efficiency photovoltaic energy harvester
with irradiance-aware auto-reconfigurable MPPT scheme achieving> 95% MPPT
U. Chibuko et al.
efficiency across 650µW to 1W and 2.9 ms FOCV MPPT transient time, 2017 IEEE
International Solid-State Circuits Conference (ISSCC). IEEE, pp. 378-379.
Vega-Garita, V., Garg, S., Narayan, N., Ramirez-Elizondo, L., Bauer, P., 2018. Testing a
PV-battery Integrated Module Prototype, 2018 IEEE 7th World Conference on
Photovoltaic Energy Conversion (WCPEC)(A Joint Conference of 45th IEEE PVSC,
28th PVSEC & 34th EU PVSEC). IEEE, pp. 1244-1248.
Vega-Garita, V., Ramirez-Elizondo, L., Bauer, P., 2017. Physical integration of a
photovoltaic-battery system: A thermal analysis. Appl. Energy 208, 446–455.
Vega-Garita, V., Ramirez-Elizondo, L., Narayan, N., Bauer, P., 2018b. Integrating a
photovoltaic storage system in one device: A critical review. Prog. Photovolt. Res.
Appl. 27 (4), 346–370.
Vega-Garita, V., Hanif, A., Narayan, N., Ramirez-Elizondo, L., Bauer, P., 2019. Selecting a
suitable battery technology for the photovoltaic battery integrated module. J. Power
Sources 438, 227011.
241
Solar Energy 249 (2023) 233–241
Wang, X., Dong, B., Feng, M., Xue, D.-J., Wang, S.-M., 2022. Sustainable management of
lead in perovskite solar cells. J. Mater. Chem. A 10 (30), 15861–15864.
Yoshikawa, K., Kawasaki, H., Yoshida, W., Irie, T., Konishi, K., Nakano, K., Uto, T.,
Adachi, D., Kanematsu, M., Uzu, H., 2017. Silicon heterojunction solar cell with
interdigitated back contacts for a photoconversion efficiency over 26%. Nat. Energy
2 (5), 1–8.
Zavos, I., Design and Modeling of Switching Battery Management System for Solar-
powered Storage Installations.
Zubair, M., Bilal Awan, A., Al-Ahmadi, A., Abo-Khalil, A.G., 2018. NPC based design
optimization for a net zero office building in hot climates with PV panels as shading
device. Energies 11 (6), 1391.