Detailed Balance (DB) Charts

Figures last updated: on November 28, 2024 by Daphne Dekker.

The figures shown below provide an up-to-date comparison between world-record solar cell efficiencies for different materials and the fundamental detailed balance efficiency limit.

These plots may be used with attribution to both this website and the following article:
Photovoltaic materials – present efficiencies and future challenges
A. Polman, M. Knight, E.G. Garnett, B. Ehrler, and W.C. Sinke, Science 352, 307 (2016). DOI: 10.1126/science.aad4424.

Efficiencies relative to the detailed balance limit

Fraction of the detailed-balance limit (black line) achieved by record-efficiency cells, gray lines showing 75% and 50% of the limit.

Optical and electrical fractions

The current ratio j = J_sc/ J_DB plotted versus the product of the voltage and fill factor fractions (v x f = FF V_oc / FF_DB V_DB) for record-efficiency cells. The lines around some data points correspond to a range of band gaps taken in the detailed balance calculations according to uncertainty in the band gap of the record cell.

Current, voltage, and FF

Single-junction solar cell parameters are shown as a function of band gap energy according to the detailed balance limit (solid lines) and experimental values for record-efficiency cells. Panel 1: Short-circuit current Jsc. Panel 2: Open-circuit voltage Voc. The voltage corresponding to the band gap is shown for reference, with the voltage gap Vg–VDB indicated by the gray shaded region. Panel 3: Fill factor FF = (JmpVmp)/(VocJsc). All data are for standard AM1.5 illumination at 1000 W/m2.

Optical and electrical fractions for selected tandem solar cells

The current ratio j = J_sc/ J_DB plotted versus the product of the voltage and fill factor fractions (v x f = FF V_oc / FF_DB V_DB) for record-efficiency cells. The labels correspond to the top//bottom subcell materials of the tandem cell.

References for record-efficiency cells in the updated figures

Crystalline silicon

• Performance parameters (efficiency 27.4%) (updated November 2024):
  Solar cell efficiency tables (version 65)
  M. A. Green et al., Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl.  (2024).
• Cell fabrication:
  No information available.

Multicrystalline silicon

• Performance parameters (efficiency 23.8%) (updated July 2020):
  Solar cell efficiency tables (version 56)
  M. A. Green et al., Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl. 28, 629– 638 (2020).
• Cell fabrication
  CANADIAN SOLAR SETS A 23.81% CONVERSION EFFICIENCY WORLD RECORD FOR N-TYPE LARGE AREA MULTI-CRYSTALLINE SILICON SOLAR CELL
  GUELPH, Ontario, Mar. 06, 2020 /PRNewswire/Canadian Solar Inc.

Amorphous silicon

• Performance parameters (efficiency 10.2%) (original, April 2016):
  Solar cell efficiency tables (version 45)
  M. A. Green et al., Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl. 23, 1-9 (2014).
• Cell fabrication:
  Development of Highly Stable and Efficient Amorphous Silicon Based Solar Cells
  T. Matsui et al., Proc. 28th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference, 2213–2217 (2013).

Nanocrystalline silicon

• Performance parameters (efficiency 11.9%) (updated September 2017):
  Solar cell efficiency tables (version 50)
  M. A. Green et al., Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl. 25, 668-676 (2017).
• Cell fabrication:
  High-efficiency microcrystalline silicon solar cells on honeycomb textured substrates grown with high-rate VHF plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition
  H. Sai et al., Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 54, 08KB05 (2015).

GaAs 

• Performance parameters (efficiency 29.1%) (updated June 2019):
  Solar cell efficiency tables (version 53)
  M. A. Green et al., Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl. 27, 3-12 (2019).
• Cell fabrication:
  Highly efficient GaAs solar cells by limiting light emission angle
  E. D. Kosten et al., Light Sci. Appl. 2, e45 (2013).

InP

• Performance parameters (efficiency 24.2%) (updated September 2017):
  Solar cell efficiency tables (version 50)
  M. A. Green et al., Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl. 25, 668-676 (2017).
• Cell fabrication:
  Advanced Ultra High Performance InP Solar Cells
  NREL Technology (23 June 2016).

GaInP

• Performance parameters (efficiency 22.0%) (updated October 2019):
  Solar cell efficiency tables (version 54)
  M. A. Green et al., Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl. 27, 565-575 (2019).
• Cell fabrication:
  NREL, private communication, 22 May 2019. (according to M. A. Green et al., Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl. 27, 565-575 (2019))

CdTe

• Performance parameters (efficiency 23.1%) (updated November 2024):
  Solar cell efficiency tables (version 65)
  M. A. Green et al., Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl.  (2024).
• Cell fabrication:
  No specifics available yet.

CIGS

• Performance parameters (efficiency 23.6%) (updated July 2023):
  Solar cell efficiency tables (version 62)
  M. A. Green et al., Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl. 31, 651-663 (2023).
• Cell fabrication:
  State of the art and future prospects of thin film CIGS solar cells
  University of Luxembourg Physics Colloquium (10 May 2023).

CZTSSe

• Performance parameters (efficiency 15.1%) (updated July 2024):
  Solar cell efficiency tables (version 64)
  M. A. Green et al., Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl. 32, 425-441 (2024).
• Cell fabrication
  Control of the phase evolution of kesterite by tuning of the selenium partial pressure for solar cells with 13.8% certified efficiency
  J. Zhou et al., Nat. Ener. 8, 526-535 (2023)

CZTS

• Performance parameters (efficiency 13.2%) (updated November 2024):
  Solar cell efficiency tables (version 65)
  M. A. Green et al., Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl. (2024).
• Cell fabrication:
  Cd-Free Cu₂ZnSnS₄ solar cell with an efficiency greater than 10% enabled by Al₂O₃ passivation layers
  X. Cui et al., Energy Environ. Sci. 12, 2751-2764 (2019)

Dye/TiO₂

• Performance parameters (efficiency 13.0%) (updated July 2023):
  Solar cell efficiency tables (version 62)
  M. A. Green et al., Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl. 31, 651-663 (2023).
• Cell fabrication:
  Hydroxamic acid pre-adsorption raises the efficiency of cosensitized solar cells
  Y. Ren et al., Nature 613, 60-65 (2023).

Organic

• Performance parameters (efficiency 19.2%) (updated July 2023):
  Solar cell efficiency tables (version 62)
  M. A. Green et al., Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 31, 651-663 (2023).
• Cell fabrication:
  Single-junction organic solar cells with over 19% efficiency enabled by a refined double-fibril network morphology
  L. Zhu et al., Nat. Mater. 21, 656-663 (2022).

Quantum-dots

• Performance parameters and cell fabrication (efficiency 16.6%) (updated July 2020):
  Ligand-assisted cation-exchange engineering for high-efficiency colloidal Cs1−xFAxPbI3 quantum dot solar cells with reduced phase segregation
  Hao, M., Bai, Y., Zeiske, S. et al., Nat. Energy 5, 79–88 (2020).

Perovskite

• Performance parameters (efficiency 26.7%) (updated July 2024):
  Solar cell efficiency tables (version 64)
  M. A. Green et al., Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl. 32, 425-441 (2024).
• Cell fabrication:
  No specifics available yet.

Antimony Selenosulfide (SbSSe)

• Performance parameters (efficiency 10.7%) and cell fabrication (updated November 2024):
  Regulating Energy Band Alignment via Alkaline Metal Fluoride Assisted Solution Post-Treatment Enabling Sb2(S,Se)3 Solar Cells with 10.7% Efficiency
  Y. Zhao et al., Adv. Energy Mater. 12, 2103015 (2022).

Tandem Solar Cells

Perovskite – Silicon

• Performance parameters (efficiency 34.6%) (updated November 2024):
  Solar cell efficiency tables (version 65)
  M. A. Green et al., Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl. (2024).
• Cell fabrication
  No specifics available yet.

Perovskite – CIGS

• Performance parameters (efficiency 24.2%) (included July 2020):
  Solar cell efficiency tables (version 57)
  A. Green et al., Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 28, 1-13 (2020).

Perovskite – Perovskite

• Performance parameters (efficiency 30.1%) (updated July 2024):
  Solar cell efficiency tables (version 64)
  M. A. Green et al., Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl. 32, 425-441 (2024).
• Cell fabrication:
  All-perovskite tandem solar cells with improved grain surface passivation
  R. Lin et al., Nature 603, 73-78 (2022).

GaAsP – Si

• Performance parameters (efficiency 23.4%) (included July 2020):
  Solar cell efficiency tables (version 57)
  A. Green et al., Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 28, 1-13 (2020).
• Cell fabrication:
  GaAs₇₅P_0.25/Si Dual-Junction Solar Cells Grown by MBE and MOCVD
  T. Grassman, IEEE Journal of Photovoltaics 6, 326 (2020).

GaInP – GaAs

• Performance parameters (efficiency 32.8%) (included July 2020):
  Solar cell efficiency tables (version 57)
  A. Green et al., Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 28, 1-13 (2020).

Perovskite – Organic

• Performance parameters (efficiency 25.1%) (updated November 2024):
  Solar cell efficiency tables (version 65)
  M. A. Green et al., Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl. (2024).
• Cell fabrication
  Highly Efficient Perovskite/Organic Tandem Solar Cells Enabled by Mixed-Cation Surface Modulation
  X. Wang et al., Adv. Mater., 35, 2305946 (2023).

Organic – Organic

• Performance parameters (efficiency 19.5%) (included August 2022):
  A Tandem Organic Photovoltaic Cell with 19.6% Efficiency Enabled by Light Distribution Control
  J. Wang et al., Adv. Matter 33, 2102787 (2021).
• Cell fabrication
  A Tandem Organic Photovoltaic Cell with 19.6% Efficiency Enabled by Light Distribution Control
  J. Wang et al., Adv. Matter 33, 2102787 (2021).