Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 227 (2021) 111100

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/solmat

TOPCon – Technology options for cost efficient industrial manufacturing

Bishal Kafle *, Baljeet Singh Goraya , Sebastian Mack , Frank Feldmann , Sebastian Nold ,
Jochen Rentsch
Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems ISE, Heidenhofstr. 2, Freiburg, 79110, Germany

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

Keywords: Formation of an interfacial tunnel oxide capped by the polysilicon (poly-Si) layer is one of the most promising
Passivated contacts methods to realize carrier-selective contacts as it offers an evolutionary upgrade to the current mainstream PERC.
TOPCon Currently, PV industry is looking towards different technologically feasible options of transferring this cell
a-Si deposition
concept from laboratory research towards industrial manufacturing. In this paper, we devise cost-driven stra­
Cost-analysis
Cost of ownership
tegies towards industrial manufacturing of TOPCon-based solar cells after assessing various process routes based
Levelized cost of electricity on currently production-ready and upcoming future alternative process technologies. Our techno-economic
assessment suggests that higher capital and operational costs required for TOPCon concept is distributed un­
evenly in the process value chain, with a significant fraction in diffusion/annealing and metallization steps.
Nevertheless, under given assumptions, TOPCon-concepts are found to remain economically competitive against
bifacial PERC in terms of levelized cost of electricity (LCOE), if a minimum absolute gain in cell efficiency Δη >
0.55% for most-conservative and Δη > 0.40% for most-progressive scenarios respectively can be maintained.

1. Introduction provided that the required area is available in the PERC facility.
Formation of tunnel oxide and deposition of intrinsic/doped poly-Si
Tunnel oxide passivated contacts (TOPCon) solar cells [1] are widely are the two crucial processing steps that are additional to the current
seen as the forthcoming technology to the current state-of-the-art PERC processing, and mainly define the process routes for TOPCon
passivated emitter and rear cell (PERC)-concept. The cell architecture processing. The properties of these layers are vital towards designing the
is based on the concept of ‘passivating and carrier selective contacts’, subsequent cell processing steps, aiming to achieve high open-circuit
where the recombination of minority charge carriers is suppressed by a voltage (VOC) and a low series resistance promised by the TOPCon-
stack of thin tunnel oxide and heavily-doped polysilicon (poly-Si) layers. concept. Apart from these steps, industrial TOPCon cells are mainly
The efficiency potential of this concept is already proven in laboratory based on more expensive n-type substrates, and require integration of
scale solar cells by reaching open circuit voltages (VOC) of up to 725 mV the boron emitter diffusion process with less industrial maturity in
and conversion efficiencies over 26% [2,3]. Moreover, initial industrial comparison to the phosphorous diffusion process typically used in p-
adoption of this technology by PV manufacturers also shows promising PERC cells.
results [4–7]. Low pressure chemical vapour deposition (LPCVD) of a-Si layers
The envisioned industrial TOPCon process routes consist of the after an in-situ grown thermal tunnel oxide is the current production-
process steps that are either fully/partly transferable from the state-of- ready technology for industrial processing of TOPCon cells. Mean­
the-art PERC cell, with inclusion of few extra process steps that are while, the TOPCon process routes that are based on alternative a-Si
necessary to increase the conversion efficiency. The technological deposition technologies are currently being investigated in research
maturity and the proven industrial readiness of process technologies facilities, and are expected to be ready for mainstream production in the
used in PERC is widely believed to provide an easy transition of PV in­ near future. In fact, various process routes and a wide range of tech­
dustry towards the higher efficiency cell concepts such as TOPCon. nology options for the TOPCon concept are currently in consideration by
Another potential advantage of carrying this evolutionary approach is the PV industry both in terms of their technological and economic
the possibility of upgrading the existing PERC production lines for viability. However, for the mass production of each of these TOPCon-
TOPCon processing with addition of minimum number of process steps, concepts, the economic competitiveness against the current

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (B. Kafle).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2021.111100
Received 8 September 2020; Received in revised form 23 February 2021; Accepted 1 April 2021
Available online 26 April 2021
0927-0248/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
B. Kafle et al. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells 227 (2021) 111100

mainstream PERC cell is still an open question. Current PERC-concept is layer as the source of hydrogenation to passivate the dangling bonds in
reported to reach up to 23% average conversion efficiencies in mass Si–SiO2 interface [9,10]. Metallization is performed by screen-printing
production with a fairly mature process sequence [8]. These continuous of Ag or Ag–Al grid on front and Ag-grid on rear considering bifacial
improvements in the price-performance ratio up-to-now enable PERC to application. The reference PERC cell is a p-type bifacial solar cell,
be the preferred option for utility-scale installations. Therefore, the featuring phosphorus (n++)-emitter, front and rear passivation layers
additional capital and operating costs required to establish and operate a and both-sided screen-printed contacts. Detailed process routes for the
TOPCon manufacturing facility needs to be offset by an increment in investigated cell types are outlined in respective sections of the paper.
conversion efficiency in the cell/module/system level, in order to The bottom up total cost of ownership (TCO) calculations are per­
further lower the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) in large scale PV formed along the PV value chain by using the internally developed
installations. An in-depth look at the cost-effective manufacturing op­ ‘SCost’ model at Fraunhofer ISE [11,12]. The model calculates the cost
tions for TOPCon is highly relevant for the PV industry, which is of ownership (COO) for individual manufacturing process steps at each
currently looking at different options of transferring the TOPCon stage of the PV value chain in accordance with the SEMI standards E35
concept from laboratory research to production lines as the potential [13] and E10 [14], and builds a process route considering equipment
next evolutionary solar cell technology upgrade to PERC. interdependencies, production overhead costs and cost of capital at the
In this work, we aim to devise cost-driven strategies towards mass factory level to estimate the TCO for the desired solar cell architecture.
manufacturing of TOPCon-based solar cells using bottom-up total cost of Different industrially feasible a-Si deposition technologies are identified
ownership (TCO) calculations of individual process steps in the PV value and compared based upon equipment and process parameters, which are
chain and the associated cell processing routes. Based on the available based on data provided by industrial equipment manufacturers as well
literature, feedback from industry, and technological developments at as our own process parameters for industrial equipments within
Fraunhofer ISE, we first discuss the up-to-now industrialized LPCVD Fraunhofer ISE’s PV-TEC pilot line. For each deposition technology,
based process routes for the TOPCon concept. We then outline and process routes that show the most promise towards mass production are
discuss status of various alternative technologies. Based on the results of identified based upon the technological and economic feasibility of the
the production readiness, we perform cost of ownership (COO) calcu­ entailed process steps. The following are the primary selection criteria
lations of different amorphous silicon (a-Si) deposition technologies, set for the best manufacturing scenario: a) availability of an industrial
with the intent of identifying and outlining technologically feasible tool, b) process compatibility, c) availability of all process parameters
process routes for the industrial TOPCon solar cell architecture, and required for the COO modeling, d) lean process flow, and e) successful
analyze their competitiveness to the mainstream bifacial PERC cell in demonstration of the process functionality. A LCOE sensitivity analysis
terms of cell/module/system costs, and levelized cost of electricity is performed to identify the minimum gain in conversion efficiency
(LCOE) for a utility-scale green field installation. Finally, sensitivity needed for TOPCon concepts in order to remain competitive against the
analysis is performed for the selected TOPCon routes in order to identify bifacial p-PERC benchmark at LCOE level.
the minimum required increment in conversion efficiency to PERC in
order to reach economic competitiveness. Based on our findings, current 3. LPCVD based TOPCon routes
and future technology options for the mass production of TOPCon solar
cells will be discussed. To date, industrial screen-printed TOPCon solar cells on n-type
substrates are based on LPCVD a-Si/poly-Si deposition technology.
2. Approach Typically, silicon layers that are predominantly amorphous in nature are
first deposited and then subjected to a high temperature annealing step
We focus on TOPCon architecture featuring screen-printed contacts in order to form polycrystalline silicon (poly-Si) layer with mixed frac­
on both-sides of n-type Si substrate as they promise the highest potential tions of amorphous and crystalline phases.
gain in conversion efficiency over the bifacial p-PERC-concept, with the
best prospects for mass production. The investigated cell architecture is 3.1. LPCVD for a-Si deposition
shown in Fig. 1.
The TOPCon solar cell is based on an n-type c-Si substrate with boron LPCVD is used as one of the important processes established in the
(p+) emitter on the textured (front) side. The front side is passivated by a semiconductor facilities to deposit highly conformal layers of a-Si/poly-
dielectric stack of passivation and anti-reflection layer. The rear side Si layers at low-pressure conditions [15]. The main advantages of this
with either textured/semi-polished or polished surface features tunnel technology are: a) good thickness distribution along the wafer and the
oxide and doped polysilicon layer acting as passivating carrier-selective boat, b) pin-hole free layers with good step coverage, c) maintaining the
contact, stacked with amorphous hydrogenated silicon nitride (a-SiNx) impurity profile previously formed in the wafer due to the use of rela­
tively low deposition temperatures close to 600 ◦ C, d) large number of
wafers per batch, and e) option of in-situ doping with constant doping
profile [16].
For the TOPCon concept investigated in this work, a phosphorus-
doped a-Si/poly-Si layer (a-Si(n)/poly-Si(n)) is required to be depos­
ited on the rear side of the solar cell. Here, silane (SiH4) is used as a
precursor for silicon deposition, optionally using diluted PH3 (in N2) to
incorporate dopants in the layer. The layer properties are influenced by
the deposition pressure, the silane concentration, the dopant content,
and most significantly by the deposition temperature. For the identical
process conditions, inclusion of doping gas significantly influences the
film growth, i.e. the silicon deposition rate. For instance, depending
upon the process conditions, inclusion of PH3 flux is reported to lower
the deposition rate by several times [17] that is further exacerbated by
an increase in PH3 flux [16]. This leads to two approaches of LPCVD a-Si
deposition – a) deposition of intrinsic a-Si/poly-Si layers, followed by an
Fig. 1. Schematic showing the TOPCon cell architecture investigated in the ex-situ POCl3 tube diffusion process to form poly-Si(n) layers, b) depo­
present work. sition of in-situ doped a-Si(n)/poly-Si(n) layers and subsequent thermal

2
B. Kafle et al. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells 227 (2021) 111100

annealing in N2. In Fig. 2, we calculate the COO of intrinsic and The two TOPCon routes differ mainly by the method used to form
phosphorus-doped layers for the same thickness of 150 nm, considering doped a-Si/poly-Si layers. After the texturing process, boron doping is
about 36% lower deposition rate for in-situ doped grown layers in performed for TOPCon cells using BBr3 precursor in a tube diffusion
comparison to intrinsic layers. LPCVD depositions are performed here in furnace to form boron (p+) emitter. This is followed by an inline wet-
a front-front configuration, i.e. placing two wafers facing front sides in a chemical process to single-sided removal of rear-side emitter, whereas
single slot. keeping the BSG layer in front-side intact; before performing ozone-
It can be observed that the COO of LPCVD step increases by almost based cleaning sequence. The BSG is kept intact on the front side in
15%abs. if in-situ phosphorus- doped layers are deposited instead of order to protect the boron emitter from being etched during the single-
intrinsic a-Si layers. Here, one of the major cost driving factors is the sided etching (SSE) of poly-Si. Afterwards, tunnel oxide is formed in-situ
reduced throughput of the LPCVD tool due to a significantly longer by oxidizing c-Si surface inside LPCVD furnace, which is followed by
process duration, which directly increases all the fixed costs. A small deposition of either intrinsic (LPCVD TOPCon exsitu) or phosphorus (n+-)
cost contribution of additional PH3 flux for phosphorus doped layer is doped a-Si/poly-Si layer (LPCVD TOPCon insitu) in a front-front process
found to be less significant as the corresponding SiH4 flux is about 20 (two wafers per slot facing front sides). The a-Si/poly-Si deposition by
times higher and is mainly responsible for the process consumables LPCVD is inherently both-sided, therefore leading to the parasitic
costs. deposition of layers on the undesired (front) side, even if the wafers are
placed in front-front configuration (two wafers placed per slot). For the
LPCVD TOPCon exsitu process route, an additional POCl3 diffusion is
3.2. Industrially viable LPCVD TOPCon routes required to incorporate dopants into a-Si/poly-Si layer, which simulta­
neously acts as a thermal annealing step required to cause phase change
Fig. 3 schematically shows the TOPCon process routes based upon of predominantly amorphous layer to a polycrystalline layer, so called
LPCVD a-Si technology, and the reference process route for bifacial p- polycrystalline-silicon (poly-Si). The ex-situ doping of the poly-Si layer
PERC. For p-type PERC cell (Bifacial p-PERC), alkaline textured wafers is also possible to achieve using an ion implantation process [6], how­
receive a phosphorus emitter by a POCl3-based low pressure tube ever, we focus on poly-Si doping using the tube furnace as it is more
diffusion furnace. Afterwards, highly phosphorous-doped regions are widely established in research and industry leading to a more accessible
selectively formed on the front side by using a laser source, aiming to process parameter dataset availability.
drive phosphorous atoms from the phosphorsilicate glass (PSG) layer The POCl3 diffusion process is optimized to dope the polysilicon
into the silicon substrate. Such a selective-emitter approach is intended layer with a constant doping concentration. During the ex-situ doping of
mainly to lower the recombination of minority charge carriers beneath poly-Si, the interfacial tunnel oxide acts like a barrier layer and helps in
the metal contacts. This is followed by the rear-emitter removal or uniform distribution of dopants within the entire thickness of the poly-Si
chemical edge isolation (CEI) process, PSG etching and ozone-based layer [20]. Consequently, there is a strong reduction in phosphorus
cleaning [18] in the same wet-chemical inline tool. Ozone cleaning doping concentration at SiOx-Si interface, although some dopants typi­
oxidizes the silicon surface, the oxide then being removed with a final cally also diffuse through the tunnel oxide into the silicon base to form a
HF-dip before the surface passivation steps. Advanced passivation of so called ’diffusion-tail’. The thermal tunnel oxide formed inside LPCVD
front and rear side is envisioned by growing thin thermal silicon oxide of furnace is reported to be stable enough to withstand the typical tem­
about 2 nm before passivation of rear (PECVD AlOx/a-SiNx stack) and peratures (850–900 ◦ C) used in the POCl3 diffusion process [21]. The
front (PECVD a-SiNx), which is deemed here a necessary step to reach a doping level of poly-Si layer is not only crucial for carrier selectivity, but
high average conversion efficiency of 23.0% in bifacial p-PERC pro­ also to maintain a high lateral conductivity in poly-Si layer, which fa­
duction. After passivation process, screen-printing of rear is performed cilitates easier current transport to metal contacts. However, an excess
by first printing Ag contact pads before printing Al grid, followed by the doping into c-Si substrate should be avoided to limit the Auger recom­
printing of Ag grid on the front. After fast-firing (FFO), a regeneration bination of charge carriers. The front-side poly-Si layer needs to be
process is required to compensate the losses in conversion efficiency due removed using a single sided etching (SSE poly) process, before pro­
to light induced degradation (LID), which is related to the formation of ceeding further with the passivation of the boron emitter. For LPCVD
boron-oxygen complexes [19].

Fig. 2. Cost of ownership (COO) of 150 nm LPCVD deposited intrinsic (left) and phosphorus-doped a-Si/poly-Si (right) layers. Cell conversion efficiency of 23.5% on
M4 size wafers is assumed here in both cases to calculate $ct/Wp costs. Here, CYL refers to the cost of yield loss.

3
B. Kafle et al. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells 227 (2021) 111100

Fig. 3. Process routes for bifacial p-PERC and both side contacted n-TOPCon-concepts based upon LPCVD a-Si/poly-Si layer.

TOPCon exsitu, this is assumed to be performed wet-chemically in an oxidation step, which is otherwise required to realize high quality
inline wet-etching tool after POCl3-diffusion, which after removing the passivation of the boron emitter before deposition of PECVD AlOx/­
PSG layer subsequently performs single-sided etching of polysilicon a-SiNx stack. It should be mentioned that the high temperature steps
(SSE), followed by BSG removal and finally ozone-based wet-chemical performed after a-Si/poly-Si deposition (POCl3 diffusion for LPCVD
cleaning step. The SSE process is assumed to be performed in a diluted TOPCon exsitu, and annealing for LPCVD TOPCon insitu) should be
alkaline solution [22], where the intact BSG layer on the textured side carefully developed not to substantially alter the boron emitter profile
prevents etching of p+ emitter by acting as a barrier layer. Afterwards, on the textured-side of the solar cell. Afterwards, front and rear metal­
boron emitter passivation is performed by first growing a thin lization is performed by using screen-printing Ag-Al and Ag grids
low-temperature thermal oxide of 1–2 nm in a tube furnace before respectively on front and rear sides, followed by the fast-firing process
deposition of PECVD AlOx/a-SiNx layer stack on the front side. After­ and I–V measurements.
wards, PECVD a-SiNx:H is also deposited on top of poly-Si layer in the Before comparing the TCO results of PERC and TOPCon cells, it is
rear side as a hydrogenation source. For LPCVD TOPCon insitu, the intuitive to closely look at the major difference in process steps for the
deposition of phosphorus doped LPCVD layers is followed in an inline two investigated TOPCon process routes from cost perspective. In Fig. 4,
wet-chemical tool to perform SSE of a-Si layer on the front-side, with a COO of individual process steps that are not common for both TOPCon
subsequent BSG etching and ozone-based wet-chemical cleaning. Af­ routes are plotted, together with the cumulative sum of all those steps.
terwards, a high temperature annealing process is required to form Here, the LPCVD TOPCon exsitu route features four process steps: LPCVD
poly-Si layers at the rear. Looking into reducing the COO of LPCVD a/poly-Si(i) deposition, LP POCl3, inline wet-chemical process (PSG
TOPCon insitu process route burdened by a costlier LPCVD deposition, etch, SSE, BSG etch and O3 cleaning), and low temperature thermal
we assume technological feasibility of optimizing the high temperature oxidation (SiOx B-emitter). LPCVD TOPCon insitu features three process
annealing step to form a high quality thin SiOx oxide on the boron steps that are unique to this route in comparison to the other TOPCon
emitter at the front side. This avoids the use of an extra thermal route: LPCVD a-Si(n) deposition, inline wet-chemical process for SSE,

Fig. 4. COO ($ct/Wp) of individual process steps that are unique for TOPCon concepts - LPCVD TOPCon exsitu (left) and LPCVD TOPCon insitu (right). Cell conversion
efficiency of 23.5% on M4 size wafers is assumed here for TOPCon concepts to calculate $ct/Wp costs. Here, CYL refers to cost of yield losses.

4
B. Kafle et al. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells 227 (2021) 111100

BSG etch and O3 cleaning, and high temperature annealing process fact, a huge share of process consumables costs in COO of a TOPCon cell
(Poly-Si Anneal). It is noticeable that although the COO of 150 nm is predominantly related to a high Ag consumption during metallization.
LPCVD a/poly-Si(n) is almost 15%abs. higher than 150 nm LPCVD a/ Thus, in order to further lower COO of a TOPCon cell, significant
poly-Si(i), the process route for doped a/poly-Si layer can be adapted reduction in Ag consumption is required.
to allow almost 18%abs. lower cumulative COO for the combined TOP­ Moreover, the recent volatility in Ag prices and an increasingly
Con steps. Here, LPCVD TOPCon insitu benefits from the absence of the growing share of industrial Ag use by the PV industry is expected to
POCl3 diffusion step. Additionally, under given assumption of drive efforts towards lowering the Ag consumption in solar cells. Fig. 6
combining both annealing and oxidation processes within a single pro­ compares COO of the metallization step for bifacial p-PERC and TOPCon
cessing step, LPCVD TOPCon insitu also features less number of process cells for various scenario of Ag reduction. The most optimistic scenario
steps in comparison to LPCVD TOPCon exsitu. of reducing Ag consumption of the cell by 50% of its current value is

3.3. Comparison of total cost of ownership (TCO) to PERC

In Fig. 5, the total cost of ownership of PERC and TOPCon processes

is distributed into wet-chemical, diffusion and annealing, passivation,
and metallization process categories. Wet-chemical processes include
alkaline texturing, CEI, glass removal (PSG/BSG), O3 cleaning, and SSE
of polysilicon layer. It is observed that there is an increase in total COO
of the wet-chemical processes for TOPCon routes, mainly due to the
requirement of additional glass etching, SSE(poly) and cleaning process
step. Diffusion and annealing processes include POCl3 and BBr3 doping,
selective laser-doping, and high temperature annealing step for a-Si
layer. COO for TOPCon routes are here significantly higher for diffu­
sion/anneal processes due to: a) a longer process duration of BBr3
diffusion in comparison to POCl3-based process leading to a significantly
reduced throughput, and b) requirement of either an additional POCl3-
doping process or a high temperature annealing step for a-Si layers.
Passivation processes include thermal oxidation, LPCVD polysilicon
depositions, and PECVD depositions of PECVD AlOx/a-SiNx stack, and a-
SiNx:H layer. For TOPCon routes, requirement of an additional LPCVD
deposition step to PERC is typically expected to increase the costs for
passivation process, as seen for LPCVD TOPCon exsitu. However, for Fig. 6. Cost of ownership ($ct/Wp) of the metallization step projected for
LPCVD TOPCon insitu, process costs are lowered by combining high percentage reduction in total Ag consumption during industrial screen printing
temperature annealing with oxidation in a single process step. Metalli­ of front and rear grids (including busbar and fingers) for bifacial p-PERC and
zation costs include screen-printing of pads (Ag) and grids (Al and Ag/ LPCVD TOPCon process routes. For p-PERC cells, it is assumed that total Ag
Ag-Al), and the fast-firing process. For bifacial p-PERC cell, the laser consumption is dominated by the front-side (Ag fraction utilized for rear-
tabbing kept constant), and aluminum consumption for the rear-side is kept
contact opening and regeneration process steps are also included in the
unchanged for all scenarios. For p-PERC cells, laser contact opening (LCO) and
‘Metallization’ category. A significantly higher metallization cost is
regeneration processes are grouped under metallization category together with
required for TOPCon cells, mainly due to the requirement of printing Ag- screen-printing and firing processes.
based grids on both sides to form contacts with low contact resistivity. In

Fig. 5. Cost of ownership ($ct/Wp) comparison of bifacial p-PERC vs LPCVD TOPCon process routes with costs of individual process steps categorized under as wet-
chemistry, diffusion & annealing (Diffusion/Anneal), passivation and metallization. For bifacial p-PERC solar cell, selective laser-doping is grouped under Diffusion/
Anneal together with POCl3 diffusion process, whereas laser contact opening (LCO) and regeneration processes are grouped under metallization category together
with screen-printing and firing processes. In the legend, CYL represent cost of yield losses. Here, cell efficiencies of 23.0% and 23.5% on M4 wafer sizes are assumed
for bifacial p-PERC and TOPCon cells respectively.

5
B. Kafle et al. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells 227 (2021) 111100

based upon the estimates of International Roadmap for Photovoltaics tool [26–28], which can also be simultaneously used to deposit a-Si
(ITRPV) [42]. Here, we assume that the Aluminum consumption for layers. In summary, although most of the above discussed oxidation
rear-side grid formation and the amount of Ag required for rear tabbing methods are principally applicable in PV manufacturing, their choice
of PERC cells remain unchanged. COO of the metallization step dips largely depends upon the used a-Si/poly-Si deposition technology.
dramatically for both cell types with lowering consumable costs related
to Ag. Nevertheless, the slope is much higher for the TOPCon cells due to
their usage of Ag on both front and rear contacts. It is interesting to note 4.2. Deposition of a-Si layer
that if the metallization concepts in future allow 50% reduction in Ag
usage, metallization costs of TOPCon cells are on-par with PERC cells, Typically, a-Si layers are first deposited and then subjected to a high
with former potentially even achieving lower watt-peak costs ($/Wp) temperature annealing step in order to form poly-Si layer. Depending
due to a higher cell power. upon the deposition technology, the doping of poly-Si is performed
In summary, the TCO in cell level is significantly higher for TOPCon either during the deposition process (in-situ) or by a follow up diffusion
concept in comparison to p-PERC cell. Nevertheless, LPCVD TOPCon process (ex-situ). Importantly, the choice of a-Si deposition technology
insitu route offers lower COO between the two investigated LPCVD- dictates almost all the other important cell processing steps. Table 2 lists
based TOPCon routes. the a-Si deposition technologies, which fully or partially fulfil the re­
quirements to be considered for high volume PV manufacturing. Some of
4. Alternative TOPCon process routes the most promising technologies that are closer to production-readiness,
apart from LPCVD, are briefly discussed here. Plasma enhanced chem­
As mentioned earlier, deposition of a-Si layer is one of the most ical vapour deposition (PECVD) is a well-proven technology in PV in­
important process steps required to realize a TOPCon solar cell. dustry to deposit dielectric passivation layers, and one of the most
Although LPCVD is currently the only industrialized process for a-Si promising candidates for a-Si deposition. In fact, ITRPV predicts a fast
deposition, there are several alternative technologies that are currently adoption of this a-Si deposition technology in expense of LPCVD in the
being tested and are in different stages of development. Besides, the near-future [42]. PECVD deposition of a-Si layers offers higher deposi­
tunnel oxide formation is also possible to realize using alternative tion rates in comparison to LPCVD technology, thereby promising
oxidation methods, other than thermal oxidation that is used for LPCVD- cost-effectiveness. Another advantage of using PECVD is a possibility of
based TOPCon process routes. In this section, different methods to form in-situ doping of a-Si layers without any compromise to layer homoge­
tunnel oxide and deposit a-Si layer are briefly summarized, as these steps neity and deposition rates. One of the key challenges is to avoid blis­
are vital towards designing the subsequent cell processing steps. tering in thick layers (d > 100 nm), which are currently required for
industrial TOPCon architecture due to an inherently high hydrogen
concentration in the deposited a-Si layer. Although PECVD is loosely
4.1. Tunnel oxide formation
considered as a single sided deposition process, avoiding wrap-around of
a-Si layers remains a technological milestone for equipment manufac­
A thin interfacial oxide layer is grown on c-Si surface before depos­
turers. Industrial tools allowing depositions in either batches [10,31,43]
iting either intrinsic or doped amorphous silicon layers. The oxide layer
or inline mode [30,34] are available, and cell integration results are also
not only provides an excellent passivation of c-Si surface, but also allows
published in literature [10,30]. In this paper, we assume batch-type
the transport of majority charge carriers from c-Si towards the metal
PECVD tool for a-Si(n) deposition in all our calculations.
contacts through the doped poly-Si layer. The stoichiometry and the
PECVD-deposited a-Si layers require an additional high temperature
thickness of the oxide layer mainly determine the thermal stability of the
annealing step to crystallize into poly-Si layers.
layer, which is a crucial aspect considering the current PV
Atmospheric pressure chemical vapour deposition (APCVD) is
manufacturing process route that features several high temperature
another potential technology to deposit intrinsic and doped a-Si layers in
steps [23,24]. Table 1 outlines the available processes in literature and
inline mode with high deposition rates [ 15,36,44]. The process utilizes
important characteristics to consider while choosing the method. The
thermal dissociation of silane (SiH4) that is inserted in a heated chamber
oxides are formed either by wet-chemical or dry methods. Among
using injector heads. Since the chemical reactions occur directly at the
wet-chemical methods, DI-O3 oxide is shown to have very good thermal
heated substrate, APCVD is also expected to provide good
stability [23]. Among dry methods, in-situ thermal oxide followed by
single-sidedness. Furthermore, in-situ doping is reportedly easily ach­
the LPCVD a-Si deposition is the current mainstream process to form
ieved by directly inserting doping precursors in the SiH4 flow, and cell
TOPCon layers in industry [25]. An appealing candidate is O3-based
integration results are also reported [35]. In Fig. 7, normalized COO of
oxidation induced by dissociation of O2 by UV light sources [23]. This
the discussed deposition technologies is plotted against varying thick­
highly cost-effective method is able to form thermally stable stoichio­
ness of the a-Si layer.
metric SiOx layers [23] for high-efficiency TOPCon cells, and potentially
It can be observed that COO of the deposition process scales signif­
can be easily mounted at the end of the wet-chemical cleaning tool to
icantly with the thickness of the a-Si layer. For LPCVD technology,
ensure a lean process flow. Plasma-based oxidation is also a promising
process costs for the a-Si(n) reduce more with the deposition thickness as
approach to form in-situ and thermally stable SiOx layer using a PECVD
compared to the a-Si(i) layer. The cost advantage for thinner layers is,
however, significantly higher for PECVD and APCVD deposited layers.
Table 1
For instance, the calculations show that COO reduction of almost 50%
Overview of oxidation technologies to form tunnel oxide layer. The symbols
for PECVD and 65% for APCVD is achievable by lowering the a-Si layer
used are qualitative representation of: ‘✓‘for favourable/possible with different
degree, ‘⨯’ for not favourable/not-possible. thickness from 200 nm to 50 nm. The reduction of COO for PECVD a-Si is
mainly due to a significant increase in throughput for lower thicknesses,
Characteristics/ Thermal UV-O3 Plasma HNO3 DI-
which consequently leads to a significant reduction of process
Technology [10,24,29] [21, [26,28, [23,24, O3
23] 30] 31] [23] consumable costs. For APCVD, lower COO for thinner layers are mainly
due to lower process consumables’ costs as these costs occupy significant
Dry or wet Dry Dry Dry Wet Wet
processing fraction of total COO. Although current screen-printing technology still
In-situ growth with ✓ ⨯ ✓ ⨯ ⨯ requires thicker (150–200 nm) poly-Si layers to avoid shunting losses,
polysilicon advances in paste developments and better understanding of contact
deposition formation are expected to drive further reduction of poly-Si thickness in
Thermal stability
future.
✓✓✓ ✓✓✓ ✓✓✓ ✓ ✓✓

6
B. Kafle et al. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells 227 (2021) 111100

Table 2
Overview of available a-Si/poly-Si deposition technologies and qualitative comparison based upon available literature (adapted from Ref. [32]). The symbols used
represent: ‘✓‘for favourable/possible with different degree, ‘⨯’ for not favourable/not-possible, and ‘–’ for work in progress/not yet demonstrated.
Characteristics/Technology LPCVD [3–6,29,33] PECVD [1,2,10,30,31,34] APCVD [35,36] PVD [37–40] Evaporation [41]

Single-sided deposition ⨯ ✓ ✓ ✓✓ ✓✓
In-situ doping ✓ ✓✓ ✓✓ ✓ –
Availability of industrial tool ✓✓✓ ✓✓ ✓✓ ✓✓ –
Process demonstrated in lab-size cells ✓✓✓ ✓✓✓ ✓ ✓✓ –
Application in large area industrial cell ✓✓✓ ✓✓ – – –
Deposition mode (Batch/Inline) Batch Both Inline Inline Batch

can be optimized in such a way that a thin thermal oxide grows on top of
boron emitter, and that an excellent passivation of the textured (front)
side can be achieved after PECVD AlOx/a-SiNx layer deposition.
For PECVD TOPCon low & APCVD TOPCon low, CEI is followed by
BSG etching as no SSE process is envisioned later for both of these
process routes. After ozone cleaning and UV-TO growth, PECVD/APCVD
a-Si(n) layers are deposited with excellent single-sidedness. Here, we
assume the best-case scenario of no additional cleaning required be­
tween PECVD/APCVD of a-Si(n) deposition and the subsequent thermal
annealing step to form poly-Si(n) layer. However, it should be noted that
contact of boron emitter with pins/trays used in the PECVD/APCVD
deposition tools could demand an extra cleaning step (for example short
HF/HCl dip) in large volume manufacturing. Thermal annealing to form
poly-Si(n) layer is coupled with simultaneous growth of thin oxide on
boron emitter, before deposition of PECVD AlOx/a-SiNx on the front
side. For all TOPCon routes, rear-side deposition of a-SiNx:H is per­
formed on top of poly-Si(n) layer, followed by the screen-printing
metallization using Ag pastes and fast-firing process to form bifacial
solar cells.

Fig. 7. Normalized COO calculated for various a-Si/poly-Si deposition tech­ 5. Techno-economic analysis along the PV value chain
nologies vs the thickness of the deposited layer. Here, two wafers per slot are
assumed for LPCVD depositions. PECVD layer deposition is assumed for a batch 5.1. TCO of TOPCon routes against PERC
type tool.
For TCO calculations, average production efficiencies of 23.0% and
4.3. Process routes for PECVD and APCVD-based TOPCon 23.5% are assumed for PERC and TOPCon cells respectively, for a green-
field production with an annual production output of 5000 MWp/a. To
In Fig. 8, the relevant industrial process routes for TOPCon cells on n- account for uncertainties in the performed bottom-up TCO calculation
type c-Si substrate, when using either PECVD or APCVD a-Si deposition featuring numerous input parameters for each processing step, we ac­
technologies, are schematically shown alongside the reference bifacial p- count an uncertainty margin of ±10% for the COO result of each of the
PERC route. Two process routes are envisioned for each PECVD and individual process steps that are already in use in mass production, i.e.
APCVD based a-Si deposition technologies, mainly based upon the all process steps for Bifacial p-PERC. To account for a higher uncertainty
perspective of single-sidedness of the deposition process. The process of the process and financial parameters, a higher COO uncertainty
routes PECVD TOPCon high & APCVD TOPCon high represent the current margin of ±20% is assumed for each of the additional steps that are
knowledge where the wrap-around of a-Si(n) layer on front-side needs to exclusive to the investigated industrial TOPCon concepts and not yet
be removed by using a single-sided etching (SSE) process. For PECVD demonstrated in mass production. These process steps include BBr3
TOPCon low & APCVD TOPCon low, both a-Si deposition technologies are diffusion, formation of UV-TO after CEI and BSG etching, a-Si deposi­
assumed to offer an excellent single-sidedness so that no SSE process is tion, high temperature annealing, and the SSE process. For all TOPCon
required after the high temperature annealing of the a-Si layer. In all concepts, polysilicon layer thickness of 150 nm is assumed for TCO
four cases, the tunnel oxide is formed by coupling an UV excimer lamp calculation.
array (UV-TO) [23] with the wet-chemical tool used for chemical edge In Fig. 9, calculated All-in cell costs (left), All-in module costs (cen­
isolation (CEI), BSG etching and ozone cleaning steps. ter), and LCOE (right) for the aforementioned bifacial p-PERC, and
For all TOPCon routes, alkaline texturing is followed by boron TOPCon process routes featuring LPCVD, PECVD and APCVD technol­
diffusion step to form p+ emitter. For PECVD TOPCon high & APCVD ogies are shown. Looking at the calculated TCO values, TOPCon-
TOPCon high, BSG is kept intact during the wet-chemical step for rear- concepts show 13.5–18.6% higher All-in Cell costs and 3.6–5.5%
emitter removal in order to protect boron emitter against chemicals higher All-in Module costs in comparison to PERC benchmark, calcu­
used in SSE process. After performing ozone cleaning in the same wet- lating with equivalent module manufacturing costs for all concepts. The
chemical tool used for CEI/BSG processes, UV-TO is grown. After­ additional cost for TOPCon module is mainly related to a higher CAPEX
wards, a 150 nm thick in-situ phosphorous doped a-Si layer is deposited and facility-related costs for the cell production facility, a significantly
on the rear-side either by using PECVD (batch-type) or APCVD tech­ higher process consumable costs in the cell processing due to the addi­
nology, with undesired wrap-around of a-Si layer on the front-side. The tional process steps required compared to a PERC cell, and the higher
SSE process is performed to remove the wrap-around of a-Si, followed by price of n-type as to the PERC p-type wafer substrate. From the TCO
BSG etching and subsequent ozone cleaning in the same wet-chemical calculations up to module level, no clear winner among TOPCon con­
tool. Here, it is assumed that the high temperature annealing process cepts can be declared looking at the uncertainty margin. Nevertheless,
assumption of in-situ deposition of a-Si(n) for LPCVD-based concepts,

7
B. Kafle et al. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells 227 (2021) 111100

Fig. 8. Process routes for bifacial p-PERC and both sides contacted n-TOPCon-concepts based upon on PECVD and APCVD-deposited a-Si layers.

Fig. 9. All-in cell costs (left), module costs (center), and LCOE (right) calculated for the bifacial p-PERC and n-TOPCon process routes. The TCO analyses of the
production includes CAPEX, material and labor costs for a green field production site with an annual output of 5000 MWp/a. Here, the numbers shown for cell
concepts in each graph represent the as-calculated TCO values prior to the error approximation. Cell efficiencies of 23.0% and 23.5%, module efficiencies of 20.42%
and 20.86%, and module power of 424 Wp and 433 Wp are assumed for p-PERC and n-TOPCon cells respectively, assuming an equivalent cell-to-module loss. The
LCOE calculations are performed for a utility-scale installation in a location with a global horizontal irradiation of 1700 kWh/m2a. For the n-TOPCon concepts, a
higher bifaciality of 80% is assumed in comparison to p-PERC (70%) for the calculation of the LCOE under bifacial irradiation (Albedo: 0.2). (For interpretation of the
references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

and possibility of single-sided deposition for PECVD and APCVD con­ TOPCon (− 0.34%/K) to PERC (− 0.37%/K) modules. Assumption of a
cepts show great promise towards lowering the cell and module pro­ higher bifaciality of TOPCon concept (80%) to p-PERC (70%), signifi­
duction costs. At LCOE level, all of the evaluated TOPCon concepts cantly increases the advantage in LCOE level for the former in utility
under monofacial illumination show similar values to the p-PERC scale installations under bifacial irradiation (Albedo: 0.2). The LCOE
technology under assumption of lower first year degradation of TOPCon parameters are listed in Table 4.
cells based on n-type substrates and lower temperature coefficient of

8
B. Kafle et al. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells 227 (2021) 111100

5.2. LCOE sensitivity to cell efficiency technologies is performed. It is observed that COO of a-Si deposition step
scales down significantly with the thickness of the a-Si layer, although
For the TCO calculations performed in the last section, an efficiency interestingly the cost reduction is largely dependent upon the used
gain of 0.5%abs. is assumed for TOPCon-concepts against the mainstream deposition technology. A much stronger reduction in COO for thinner
PERC cell. Meanwhile, it is intuitive to compare the LCOE costs of PERC layers is observed for PECVD and APCVD-deposition technologies,
and TOPCon production at different conversion efficiency levels. Fig. 10 which is mainly related to their significantly higher a-Si deposition rates
compares the nominal LCOE costs for p-PERC cell with two of the most in comparison to LPCVD. For instance, up to 50% reduction in COO can
conservative and most progressive TOPCon concepts, for a range of be achieved by lowering the thickness of PECVD and APCVD a-Si layer
conversion efficiencies under monofacial illumination conditions. It is from 200 nm to 50 nm. For PECVD and APCVD a-Si technologies, two
observed that at LCOE level, an efficiency gain >0.55%abs. is required to process routes are investigated based upon whether or not the single-
achieve an economic advantage for the most conservative TOPCon- sided polysilicon etching process is required in the envisioned TOPCon
concept over p-PERC. For the most progressive case, an efficiency gain process sequence.
of >0.40%abs. is sufficient for the TOPCon based cell concepts to remain For the techno-economic analysis, a TCO calculation for a green-field
competitive over p-PERC under the given assumptions (irradiation: production with an annual production output of 5000 MWp/a is per­
1700 kWh/m2, system size: 5 MWpa). formed. The TOPCon-concepts show higher cell and module costs in
comparison to the PERC benchmark, which is mainly dominated by a
6. Summary higher CAPEX and OPEX due to additional equipment need, an increased
usage of process consumables, and a higher price of the n-type substrate.
We analyzed process routes for industrial manufacturing of TOPCon Looking at the TCO results, no clear winner could be elected among
cells, which are designed to mainly integrate LPCVD a-Si deposition TOPCon concepts, especially looking at uncertainty margins of our as­
technology in cell processing. In comparison to bifacial p-PERC, the sumptions. Nevertheless, especially in-situ deposition of a-Si(n) for
LPCVD based TOPCon concepts on n-type silicon substrates show higher LPCVD-based concept, and single-sided deposition of a-Si(n) layer for
cell production costs that are distributed in all relevant cell processing PECVD and APCVD concepts show great promise towards further
clusters – wet-chemistry, diffusion/annealing, passivation, and metalli­ reduction of the cell and module production costs of the industrially
zation processes. Higher COO in diffusion/annealing process is mainly manufactured TOPCon solar cell. At LCOE level, all the evaluated
related to the lower throughput of BBr3 diffusion process and require­ TOPCon concepts under monofacial illumination show slightly lower
ment of an extra POCl3-diffusion & the high temperature annealing LCOE values to the bifacial p-PERC technology, assuming a TOPCon cell
steps, whereas a-Si deposition technology is one of the major cost drivers efficiency advantage of 0.5%abs. over PERC at 23.5% and 23.0%
among passivation process steps. A significantly higher process respectively. Sensitivity of the LCOE to the cell efficiency is analyzed for
consumable cost related to Ag-paste leads to a higher COO for TOPCon TOPCon routes that previously showed highest and lowest LCOE values
cell metallization. For LPCVD-based TOPCon concept, LPCVD deposi­ in comparison to bifacial p-PERC. At LCOE level, considering the most
tion step shows almost 15%abs. higher COO for in-situ doped layers in conservative TOPCon concept, a minimum gain of 0.55%abs. in con­
comparison to intrinsic layers, mainly due to a significant difference in version efficiency to bifacial p-PERC concept is required to be econom­
the deposition rate. Nevertheless, for the process route featuring in-situ ically viable. For the best-case TOPCon concept, a cell efficiency gain
deposited LPCVD a-Si/poly-Si layers, we identify a possibility of >0.40%abs. to bifacial p-PERC already allows cost-effective high-volume
combining the high temperature annealing and oxidation of boron manufacturing of TOPCon solar cells. A further reduction in cell/module
emitter in a single step, which makes this approach economically production costs & LCOE of TOPCon-concepts could be expected with
competitive in comparison to the process route featuring ex-situ LPCVD the advances in screen-printing technology, by allowing deposition of
a-Si/poly-Si layers. thinner polysilicon layers that would not only reduce the related process
Meanwhile, alternatives to LPCVD-based process routes are identi­ costs but would also increase the bifacial performance of TOPCon cells.
fied and some of the most promising process routes for industrial TOP­ Apart from that, lowering Ag consumption in screen-printing metalli­
Con manufacturing are designed and evaluated. A comparison of zation step remains a very important technological milestone for TOP­
normalized COO between LPCVD, PECVD and APCVD a-Si deposition Con manufacturers to further lower the COO and LCOE of the TOPCon-
concept. Last but not least, it should be noted that the economic viability
of each of the analyzed TOPCon routes requires a stable 24/7 production
with equivalent uptime and utilization rates to current PERC cell
manufacturing facilities, as it is assumed throughout this analysis.
Additionally, it is worth emphasizing that the COO can significantly
increase with a decrease in process yield. Especially for the case of
TOPCon route, where various equipment types and processing routes are
currently being assessed for high-volume manufacturing, this parameter
should be carefully assessed prior to implementation.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Bishal Kafle: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis,

Methodology, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. Baljeet Singh Goraya: Data curation, Formal analysis, Meth­
odology. Sebastian Mack: Data curation, Project administration,
Writing – review & editing. Frank Feldmann: Data curation, Writing –
review & editing. Sebastian Nold: Conceptualization, Formal analysis,
Methodology, Writing – review & editing. Jochen Rentsch: Data
Fig. 10. Progression of nominal LCOE under monofacial irradiation with an
increase in cell efficiency for Bifacial_p-PERC, and TOPCon routes achieving the curation, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Writing – review
highest (TOPCon high) and lowest (TOPCon low) LCOE values. The LCOE of cell & editing.
concepts at the assumed conversion efficiencies (23.0% for PERC & 23.5% for
TOPCon) are also shown as data points.

9
B. Kafle et al. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells 227 (2021) 111100

Declaration of competing interest Acknowledgment

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial The authors acknowledge funding from German Federal Ministry for
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence Economic Affairs and Energy within the project TOPCon Cluster under
the work reported in this paper. the contract number 03EE1065A. The authors have no conflicting in­
terests to declare.

APPENDIX
Table 3
Production parameters

Input Assumed Value

Operating Time / utilization 8520 hours/year (355 d/a, 24h/d)

Annual production capacity 5 GWp

Product: Glass-glass module

Wafer type Cz, M4 size (258.39 cm2)
Cell η (PERC / TOPCon) 23.0 / 23.5 %
Module η (PERC / TOPCon) 20.42 / 20.86 %
Module power (PERC / TOPCon) 424 / 433 Wp
Cell to module power loss/gain -0.9%
Metallization H-pattern (5 Busbar)
No. of cells per module 72
Interconnection technology Ribbon
Encapsulation EVA
Module area 2.08 m2

Ag paste consumption
Front (PERC / TOPCon) 90 mg / 90 mg
Rear (PERC / TOPCon) 25 mg (Ag pads) / 100 mg

Table 4
LCOE parameters

Input Assumed Value

Global horizontal irradiation 1700 kWh/m2a (South Europe)

Irradiation on module plane 1870 kWh/m2a
System size 5000 kWp
System type Green field
System life 25 years

Degradation parameters
1st year (PERC / TOPCon) 2.0% / 1.5%
2+ year (PERC / TOPCon) 0.5% / 0.5%

Temperature Coefficient
Pmpp (PERC / TOPCon) -0.37 / -0.34 %/K

Bifaciality (PERC / TOPCon) 70% / 80%

Albedo 0.2 (340 kWh/m2a)

Table 5
Total production yield of process routes. Process yield
is calculated by multiplying the individual yield of
each processing step, with the related equipment,
over the processing route.

Process route Yield

Bifacial p-PERC 98.47%

LPCVD TOPCon_exsitu 98.24%
LPCVD TOPCon_insitu 98.36%
PECVD TOPCon_high 98.36%
PECVD TOPCon_low 98.46%
APCVD TOPCon_high 98.36%
APCVD TOPCon_low 98.46%

10
B. Kafle et al. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells 227 (2021) 111100

Table 6
Balance of system (BOS) costs

Cost category Utility case

Inverter costs 4.0 €ct/Wp

Area proportional ВOS costs 43 €/m2
Power proportional BOS costs 9.0 €ct/Wp
Soft BOS costs 4.1 €ct/Wp
Annual costs 1.0% of system CAPEX

Table 7
Financial parameters. Please note that Building CAPEX is applied on whole building area including production area, warehouse, labs, offices
etc., whereas the Facility CAPEX is applied on production area only.

Input Assumed Value

Labor Costs (FTE = Full Time Equivalent)

Operation 10000 €/a per FTE
Technician 15000 €/a per FTE
Supervision 20000 €/a per FTE
Engineering 30000 €/a per FTE
Scientist 35000 €/a per FTE

Cell production CAPEX (EquipmentþBuildingþFacility)

Bifacial p-PERC 70.8 Mn €/GWp
LPCVD TOPCon_exsitu 77.4 Mn €/GWp
LPCVD TOPCon_insitu 73.3 Mn €/GWp
PECVD TOPCon_high 73.3 Mn €/GWp
PECVD TOPCon_low 69.6 Mn €/GWp
APCVD TOPCon_high 78.0 Mn €/GWp
APCVD TOPCon_low 74.3 Mn €/GWp

Module production CAPEX (EquipmentþBuildingþFacility)

Bifacial p-PERC 37.7 Mn €/GWp
TOPCon concepts 36.2 Mn €/GWp

Building CAPEX 800 €/m2

Facility CAPEX 1500 €/m2

Additional OPEX 1.5 €ct /cell

(Building & Infrastructure)

Depreciation Periods
Equipment CAPEX 7 years
Facility CAPEX 10 years
Building CAPEX 20 years

Cost of Capital
Debt / equity rate 80 / 20%
Cost of debt / Cost of equity 5 / 10%
Corporate tax rate 25%
WACC (all assets – Equipment, facility & materials in stock for 14 days) 5.0%

M4 Wafer price
p-type 34.7 $ct/piece
n-type 37.5 $ct/piece

Electricity price 5.99 $ct/kWh

Ag price 19.67 $/Oz.tr. (12-month average Nov.2019-Nov.2020)

Currency conversion (€/$) 0.9

References by wafer thickness and resistivity variation, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cell. 173
(2017) 96–105, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2017.05.042.
[3] F. Haase, C. Hollemann, S. Schäfer, A. Merkle, M. Rienäcker, J. Krügener,
[1] F. Feldmann, M. Bivour, C. Reichel, M. Hermle, S.W. Glunz, Passivated rear
R. Brendel, R. Peibst, Laser contact openings for local poly-Si-metal contacts
contacts for high-efficiency n-type Si solar cells providing high interface
enabling 26.1%-efficient POLO-IBC solar cells, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cell. 186
passivation quality and excellent transport characteristics, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol.
(2018) 184–193, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2018.06.020.
Cell. 120 (2014) 270–274, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2013.09.017.
[4] Y. Chen, D. Chen, C. Liu, Z. Wang, Y. Zou, Y. He, Y. Wang, L. Yuan, J. Gong, W. Lin,
[2] A. Richter, J. Benick, F. Feldmann, A. Fell, M. Hermle, S.W. Glunz, n-Type Si solar
X. Zhang, Y. Yang, H. Shen, Z. Feng, P.P. Altermatt, P.J. Verlinden, Mass
cells with passivating electron contact: identifying sources for efficiency limitations
production of industrial tunnel oxide passivated contacts (i-TOPCon) silicon solar

11
B. Kafle et al. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells 227 (2021) 111100

cells with average efficiency over 23% and modules over 345 W, Prog. [25] International Technology Roadmap for Photovoltaic (ITRPV), reportResults 2018
Photovoltaics Res. Appl. 27 (2019) 827–834, https://doi.org/10.1002/pip.3180. Including Maturity Report 2019.
[5] Daming Chen, Yifeng Chen, Zigang Wang, Jian Gong, Chengfa Liu, Yang Zou, [26] Yuqing Huang, Mingdun Liao, Zhixue Wang, Xueqi Guo, Chunsheng Jiang,
He Yu, Yao Wang, Ling Yuan, Wenjie Lin, Rui Xia, Li Yin, Xueling Zhang, Qing Yang, Zhizhong Yuan, Dandan Huang, Jie Yang, Xinyu Zhang, Qi Wang,
Guanchao Xu, Yang Yang, Hui Shen, Zhiqiang Feng, Pietro P. Altermatt, Pierre Hao Jin, Mowafak Al-Jassim, Chunhui Shou, Yuheng Zeng, Baojie Yan, Jichun Ye,
J. Verlinden, 24.58% total area efficiency of screen-printed, large area industrial Ultrathin silicon oxide prepared by in-line plasma-assisted N2O oxidation (PANO)
silicon solar cells with the tunnel oxide passivated contacts (i-TOPCon) design, Sol. and the application for n-type polysilicon passivated contact, Sol. Energy Mater.
Energy Mater. Sol. Cell. 206 (2020) 110258. Sol. Cell. 208 (2020) 110389, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2019.110389.
[6] Chen Jia, Jolywood (Taizhou) Solar Technology, Progress of Jolywood N-TOPCon [27] Tian Gao, Qing Yang, Xueqi Guo, Yuqing Huang, Zhi Zhang, Zhixue Wang,
Technology, Presented in Taiyang News Webinar (09.06.2020). Mingdun Liao, Chunhui Shou, Yuheng Zeng, Baojie Yan, Guofu Hou,
[7] JinkoSolar Holding Co Ltd, JinkoSolar Large-Area N-type Monocrystalline Silicon Xiaodan Zhang, Ying Zhao, Jichun Ye, An industrially viable TOPCon structure
Solar Cell Reaches Record High Efficiency of 24.79%, Press Release, Shanghai, with both ultra-thin SiOx and n+-poly-Si processed by PECVD for p-type c-Si solar
China, 2020. cells, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cell. 200 (2019), 109926, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[8] F. Stenzel, B.G. Lee, J. Cieslak, A. Schwabedissen, D. Wissen, S. Geißler, solmat.2019.109926.
T. Rudolph, B. Faulwetter-Quandt, R. Hönig, S. Wasmer, R. Bakowskie, D. Buß, [28] M. Jeon, J. Kang, G. Shim, S. Ahn, N. Balaji, C. Park, Y.-J. Lee, J. Yi, Passivation
F. Fertig, M. Schaper, A. Mette, J.W. Müller, Exceeding 23% and Mass Production effect of tunnel oxide grown by N2O plasma for c-Si solar cell applications, Vacuum
of p-Cz Q.ANTUM Bifacial Solar Cells, Proceedings of the 36th European 141 (2017) 152–156, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vacuum.2017.03.035.
Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition, 2019. Marseille, France. [29] L.J. Bart, Maciej Stodolny Geerligs, Yu Wu, Astrid Gutjahr, Gaby Janssen,
[9] B.W.H. van de Loo, B. Macco, M. Schnabel, M.K. Stodolny, A.A. Mewe, D.L. Young, IngridRomijn, John Anker, Evert Bende, Hande Ciftpinar, Martijn Lenes, and Jan-
W. Nemeth, P. Stradins, W.M.M. Kessels, On the hydrogenation of Poly-Si Marc Luchies, LPCVD Polysilicon Passivating Contacts, Workshop on Crystalline
passivating contacts by Al2O3 and SiN thin films, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cell. 215 Silicon Solar Cells and Modules: Materials and Processes, Vail, Co., USA, 2016.
(2020) 110592, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2020.110592. [30] N. Nandakumar, J. Rodriguez, T. Kluge, T. Groβe, L. Fondop, P. Padhamnath,
[10] Feldmann Frank, Tobias Fellmeth, Bernd Steinhauser, Henning Nagel, N. Balaji, M. König, S. Duttagupta, Approaching 23% with large-area monoPoly
Daniel Ourinson, Sebastian Mack, Elmar Lohmüller, Polzin Jana, Benick Jan, cells using screen-printed and fired rear passivating contacts fabricated by inline
Armin Richter, Ana Moldovan, Martin Bivour, Florian Clement, Jochen Rentsch, PECVD, Prog. Photovoltaics Res. Appl. 27 (2019) 107–112, https://doi.org/
Hermle Martin, W. Stefan, Glunz, Large Area Topcon Cells Realized by a PECVD 10.1002/pip.3097.
Tube Process, 36th EUPVSEC, Marseille, 2019. [31] B. Steinhauser, J.-I. Polzin, F. Feldmann, M. Hermle, S.W. Glunz, Excellent surface
[11] Sebastian Nold, Nadine Voigt, Lorenz Friedrich, Dirk Weber, Ingrid Hädrich, passivation quality on crystalline silicon using industrial-scale direct-plasma
Max Mittag, Harry Wirth, Thaidigsmann Benjamin, Ingo Brucker, Marc Hofmann, TOPCon deposition technology, Sol. RRL 2 (2018) 1800068, https://doi.org/
Jochen Rentsch, Ralf Preu, Cost Modeling of Silicon Solar Cell Production 10.1002/solr.201800068.
Innovation along the PV Value Chain, 33rd EUPVSEC Paris, 2013. [32] Hermle Martin, et al., in: nPV Workshop, 2019. Leuven.
[12] P.D.T. Sebastian Nold, Techno-ökonomische Bewertung neuer [33] R.C.G. Naber, B.W.H. van de Loo, J.R.M. Luchies, LPCVD In-Situ n-Type Doped
Produktionstechnologien entlang der Photovoltaik-Wertschöpfungskette: Modell Polysilicon Process Throughput Optimization and Implementation into an
zur Analyse der Total Cost of Ownership von Photovoltaik-Technologien, 2020. Industrial Solar Cell Process Flow, 36th EUPVSEC, 2019. Marseille.
[13] Semiconductor Equipment and Materials Institute, SEMI E35 - Guide to Calculate [34] J. Temmler, J.-I. Polzin, F. Feldmann, L. Kraus, B. Kafle, S. Mack, A. Moldovan,
Cost of Ownership (COO) Metrics for Semiconductor Manufacturing Equipment, M. Hermle, J. Rentsch, Inline PECVD deposition of poly-Si-based tunnel oxide
2007. passivating contacts, Phys. Status Solidi 215 (2018) 1800449, https://doi.org/
[14] Semiconductor Equipment and Materials Institute, SEMI E10 - Specification for 10.1002/pssa.201800449.
Definition and Measurement of Equipment Reliability, Availability, and [35] Agnes Merkle, Sven Seren, Holger Knauss, Byungsul Min, Jonathan Steffens,
Maintainability (RAM) and Utilization, 2004. Barbara Terheiden, Rolf Brendel, Robby Peibst, Atmospheric pressure chemical
[15] J.D. Plummer, M.D. Deal, P.B. Griffin, Silicon VLSI Technology: Fundamentals, vapor deposition of in-situ doped amorphous silicon layers for passivating contacts,
Practice and Modeling, Prentice Hall, 2000. in: 35th EUPVSEC, 2018.
[16] A. Baudrant, M. Sacilotti, The LPCVD polysilicon phosphorus doped in situ as an [36] Christian Buchner, Role of equipment in PV evolution, in: PVCelltech, 2019.
industrial process, J. Electrochem. Soc.: Solid-State Science and Technology 129 Malaysia.
(1992) 1109–1116. [37] Di Yan, A. Cuevas, S.P. Phang, Y. Wan, D. Macdonald, 23% efficient p-type
[17] A. Tounsi, E. Scheid, C. Azzaro, P. Duverneuil, J.P. Couderc, Elaboration of in situ crystalline silicon solar cells with hole-selective passivating contacts based on
phosphorus doped polysilicon films under LPCVD conditions process modelling physical vapor deposition of doped silicon films, Appl. Phys. Lett. 113 (2018)
and characterization, J. Phys. IV France 3 (1993) C3–C123, https://doi.org/ 61603, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5037610.
10.1051/jp4:1993315. C3-130. [38] E. Schneiderlöchner, J. Baumann, M. Dimer, X. Huanchao, R. Köhler, V. Linß,
[18] A. Moldovan, K. Birmann, J. Rentsch, M. Zimmer, T. Gitte, J. Fittkau, Combined D. Radach, J. Brückner, High-Volume PVD Technology Options for High-Efficiency
ozone/HF/HCI based cleaning and adjusted emitter etch-back for silicon solar Silicon Solar Cells, PVCelltech Malaysia, 2019.
cells, SSP 195 (2012) 305–309. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/SS [39] J. Hoß, J. Baumann, M. Berendt, U. Graupner, R. Köhler, J. Lossen, M. Thumsch,
P.195.305. E. Schneiderlöchner, Sputtering of silicon thin films for passivated contacts, in:
[19] J. Lindroos, H. Savin, Review of light-induced degradation in crystalline silicon 15th International Conference on Concentrator Photovoltaic Systems (CPV-15),
solar cells, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cell. 147 (2016) 115–126, https://doi.org/ Fes, Morocco, AIP Publishing, 2019, p. 40007.
10.1016/j.solmat.2015.11.047. [40] J. Steffens, J. Rinder, G. Hahn, B. Terheiden, Compensation of the sputter damage
[20] Di Yan, Andres Cuevas, James Bullock, Yimao Wan, Christian Samundsett, during a-Si deposition for poly-Si/SiOx passivating contacts by ex-situ p-doping, in:
Phosphorus-diffused polysilicon contacts for solar cells, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. 15th International Conference on Concentrator Photovoltaic Systems (CPV-15),
Cell. 142 (2015) 75–82, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2015.06.001. Fes, Morocco, AIP Publishing, 2019, p. 40018.
[21] R. Brendel, T. Dullweber, R. Peibst, C. Kranz, A. Merkle, D. Walter, Breakdown of [41] J. Lossen, J. Hoß, S. Eisert, D. Amkreutz, M. Muske, J. Plentz, G. Andrä, Electron
the efficiency gap to 29% based on experimental input data and modeling, Prog. Beam Evaporation of Silicon for Poly-Si/SiO Passivated Contacts, 35th EUPVSEC,
Photovoltaics Res. Appl. 24 (2016) 1475–1486, https://doi.org/10.1002/pip.2696. Brussels, 2018.
[22] R. Charavel, J.-P. Raskin, Tuning of etching rate by implantation: silicon, [42] International Technology Roadmap for Photovoltaic (ITRPV), eleventh ed., April
polysilicon and oxide, in: AIP Conference Proceedings, Marseille (France), AIP, 11- 2020.
16 June 2006, pp. 325–328. [43] J.-I. Polzin, F. Feldmann, B. Steinhauser, M. Hermle, S. Glunz, Realization of
[23] A. Moldovan, F. Feldmann, K. Kaufmann, S. Richter, M. Werner, C. Hagendorf, TOPCon using industrial scale PECVD equipment, AIP Conference Proceedings
M. Zimmer, J. Rentsch, M. Hermle, Tunnel oxide passivated carrier-selective 1999 (1–6) (2018), 040018, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5049281.
contacts based on ultra-thin SiO2 layers grown by photo-oxidation or wet-chemical [44] T. Yeghoyan, K. Alassaad, V. Soulière, T. Douillard, D. Carole, G. Ferro, Growth and
oxidation in ozonized water, in: IEEE 42nd Photovoltaic Specialist Conference characterization of undoped polysilicon thick layers: Revisiting an old system,
(PVSC), IEEE, New Orleans, LA, 2015, pp. 1–6, 6/14/2015 - 6/19/2015. Siliconindia 12 (2020) 1187–1194, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12633-019-00209-2.
[24] J.-I. Polzin, F. Feldmann, B. Steinhauser, M. Hermle, S.W. Glunz, Study on the
interfacial oxide in passivating contacts, AIP Conference Proceedings 2147 (2019)
40016, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5123843.

12