Spectral Effects on the Energy Harvesting Efficiency of Two‐ and Four‐Terminal Tandem Photovoltaics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, the effect of a varying spectral irradiance and top cell bandgap on the energy harvesting efficiency of two‐terminal (2T) and four‐terminal (4T) perovskite//silicon tandem solar cells under outdoor operating conditions is investigated. For the comparison, an optoelectronic model employing a 1 year outdoor data set for a 4T mechanical stacked gallium arsenide (GaAs) on crystalline silicon (Si) tandem device is first validated. Then, the verified model is used to simulate perovskite//silicon tandem devices with a varying perovskite top cell bandgap for a location in Golden, Colorado, USA. A spectral binning method to efficiently reduce and improve the visualization of the 1 min‐resolved environmental data while maintaining the simulation accuracy is introduced. The findings reveal that, for a device that is current matched under standard testing conditions, the annual spectral deviation reduces the energy harvesting efficiency by only 2%rel. When additional realistic losses for the 4T are taken into account, 2T devices are shown to have an energy‐harvesting efficiency that is at parity or higher. Deviations in the top cell bandgap are more than 0.1 eV from current matching result in a reduced energy harvesting efficiency of more than 5%rel for the 2T tandem device.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".