Investigating manufacturing options for industrial PERL-type Si solar cells

In this paper the tradeoff between process control and cost-effectiveness for PERL-type process flows is investigated. Three aspects are considered: (1) whether a surface pre-treatment (for example special cleans and/or oxidation) prior to the deposition of the Al2O3-based rear-side passivation stack has to be added to the flow; (2) the quantification of the impact on cell parameters of skipping the rear-side polishing and/or the Al2O3 deposition; and (3) the possibility of replacing Al paste with PVD Al for rear side metallization. It is found that: (1) SPM-like cleans or thermal oxidation prior to Al2O3 deposition are useful steps to guarantee a stable Al2O3-based passivation process. (2) The efficiency drops by more than 1% by skipping the polishing, but only ≈0.15% by removing the Al2O3 from the passivation stack. Therefore, while rear-side polishing appears to be a necessary step for PERC/PERL technologies, the insertion of Al2O3 in the passivation stack could be traded off for a reduced production cost, depending on the (company-specific) details of cost-calculations. (3) Replacing Al paste with PVD Al for rear side metallization results in a deteriorated reflectance. The effect is larger for thinner passivation stacks. Although less advantageous in term of material costs with respect to PVD Al, screen-printed Al would therefore be the preferred choice for PERL cells featuring thin passivation stacks.

► SPM-like cleans or thermal oxidation is required to achieve a stable Al2O3-based passivation.
► Skipping rear-side polishing causes a drop in PERL-type solar cell efficiency larger than 1%.
► Skipping the Al2O3 deposition causes a drop in efficiency of only ≈0.15%.
► Replacing Al paste with PVD Al for rear side metallization deteriorates reflectance.
► Reflectance deteriorates more for thinner passivation stacks.