Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of Record (includes final page, issue and volume numbers)
Please check the document version of this publication:• A submitted manuscript is the author's version of the article upon submission and before peer-review. There can be important differences between the submitted version and the official published version of record. People interested in the research are advised to contact the author for the final version of the publication, or visit the DOI to the publisher's website.• The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review.• The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers.
Link to publication
General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.• You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ?
Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
b s t r a c tTandem solar cells are the best approach to maximize the light harvesting and adjust the overall absorption of the cell to the solar irradiance spectrum. Usually, the front and back subcells are connected in series in two-terminal device (2T) designs which require a current matching between both subcells in order to avoid potential losses. Alternatively, they can also be connected in parallel giving rise to a three terminal connection (3T). In principle, both designs have their assets and drawbacks in terms of device performance, design and materials' characterization. In this letter, we theoretically and experimentally confront both designs with each other (2T and 3T). Theoretical estimations show a maximum PCE of 15% for 2T and about 13% for 3T structures with ideal bandgaps for the front and back cell. However, 3T tandem devices can yield higher efficiencies than 2T for some specific material combinations whose theoretical values are between 10% and 12%. Therefore, other aspects related to the fabrication feasibility are studied in order to analyze the most convenient approach for module development. The need of a conducting interlayer restricts the width of the cell and causes a 3% reduction in the geometrical fill factor of the module in comparison to the 2T approach. The R2R processing of modules with 3T cells would also require an additional laser step. Finally, a couple of existing material combinations have been experimentally implemented into 2T and 3T t...