Comparison on Module Performance and Degradation Robustness of Two-, Three-, and Four-Terminal Perovskite Silicon Configurations Under Realistic Operating Conditions

Journal Article (2026)
Author(s)

Y. Blom (TU Delft - Photovoltaic Materials and Devices)

W. Suprayogi (Student TU Delft)

M.R. Vogt (TU Delft - Photovoltaic Materials and Devices)

O. Isabella (TU Delft - Photovoltaic Materials and Devices)

R. Santbergen (TU Delft - Photovoltaic Materials and Devices)

Research Group
Photovoltaic Materials and Devices
DOI related publication
https://doi.org/10.1002/pip.70066
More Info
expand_more
Publication Year
2026
Language
English
Research Group
Photovoltaic Materials and Devices
Reuse Rights

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.

Abstract

Perovskite/silicon (PS) technology includes three main configurations: two-terminal (2T), three-terminal (3T), and four-terminal (4T). Previous studies have made various comparisons between these configurations, significantly advancing our understanding of these devices. While these studies mostly focus on simulations on cell level, we perform bandgap energy ((Formula presented.)) optimization at the module level for different configurations under outdoor conditions. Using opto-electrical simulations, we predict the energy yield of each module at four geographical locations, with varying values of (Formula presented.). The optimal (Formula presented.) for the 2T, 3T, and 4T modules are 1.62, 1.80, and 1.82 eV, respectively. We also perform a loss analysis to explore the differences in power losses among the configurations. These loss differences can be attributed to the configurations having different optimal (Formula presented.) values (affecting the thermalization losses) or different module designs (affecting the interconnection losses). Among all losses, mismatch losses play the most critical role in optimizing the bandgap. Overall, all optimized configurations have similar energy yields (all differences within 1.5%) across all locations. Finally, we compare the robustness of the different configurations against different scenarios of perovskite degradation. Our results show that the 4T module is the least sensitive to degradation in the perovskite subcell.