V3I1P34

Comparative Assessment of Crystalline‑Silicon PV Technologies (PERC, TOPCon, HJT, IBC): Encapsulant Selection, Reliability Testing (PID, DH, UVID, LeTID, Hot‑Spot, TC, HF), and Cost–Efficiency Trade‑offs

Rahul Kumar^1*

Abstract

We present a comparative study of four crystalline‑silicon photovoltaic (PV) cell architectures—PERC, TOPCon, HJT, and IBC—integrating module‑level performance ranges, manufacturing cost orientation, and reliability testing aligned with IEC standards. We analyze efficiency (20.5–24.5%), temperature coefficients, bifaciality, and indicative $/W costs, and propose a bill‑of‑materials (BOM) decision framework using encapsulants EVA, EPE, and POE for glass–glass (GG) and glass–backsheet (GB) packages. We include a standardized test matrix for PID (IEC TS 62804‑1), Damp Heat (DH), UV preconditioning (UVID), LeTID (IEC TS 63342), Hot‑Spot endurance, Thermal Cycling (TC), and Humidity Freeze (HF). Charts compare efficiency, cost, LCOE, and retained‑power trajectories for GG vs GB. Results indicate TOPCon as the near‑term cost–performance default, HJT as a premium option in heat‑ and space‑constrained contexts, and IBC as the high‑efficiency frontier; encapsulant choice (POE/EPE) materially reduces PID and moisture‑driven risks, especially in GG bifacial modules.

Keywords:

TOPCon; PERC; HJT; IBC; Encapsulant; EVA; POE; EPE; PID; LeTID; IEC 61215; Reliability; LCOE; Bifacial; Glass–Glass; Glass–Backsheet