Design of Multijunction Photovoltaic Cells Optimized for Varied Atmospheric Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Band gap engineering provides an opportunity to not only provide higher overall conversion efficiencies of the reference AM1.5 spectra but also customize PV device design for specific geographic locations and microenvironments based on atmospheric conditions characteristic to that particular location. Indium gallium nitride and other PV materials offer the opportunity for limited bandgap engineering to match spectra. The effects of atmospheric conditions such as aerosols, cloud cover, water vapor, and air mass have been shown to cause variations in spectral radiance that alters PV system performance due to both overrating and underrating. Designing PV devices optimized for spectral radiance of a particular region can result in improved PV system performance. This paper presents a new method for designing geographically optimized PV cells with using a numerical model for bandgap optimization. The geographic microclimate spectrally resolved solar flux for twelve representative atmospheric conditions for the incident radiation angle (zenith angle) of 48.1° and fixed array angle of 40° is used to iteratively optimize the band gap for tandem, triple, and quad-layer of InGaN-based multijunction cells. The results of this method are illustrated for the case study of solar farms in the New York region and discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".