Review Article

Harvesting Ambient Environmental Energy for Wireless Sensor Networks: A Survey

Table 2

The comprehensive comparison of various solar cells.

ClassificationEfficiencyAdvantageDisadvantage

Silicon solar cells
 Monocrystalline
15–24%High conversion efficiency, the most mature technology, and high reliabilityHigh cost, large silicon consumption, and complex production process
 Polysilicon
14–20.4%No efficiency recession, can be fabricated on cheap substrates, and far lower cost than monocrystallineRelatively large silicon consumption and cost, complex production process
 a-Si8–13.2%Low cost, easiness of mass production, relatively high optical absorption coefficient, very low dark conductivity, and good response to weak light Light-induced recession effect, low conversion efficiency, and low stability

Multicompound
solar cells
 CdS
Up to 16%Low cost, easiness of mass productionToxic cadmium
 CdTeTheoretical: 28%Ideal band gap, high light absorption rate, high conversion efficiency, stable performance, simple structure, and low costLimited natural tellurium reserves, high cost of module and base material, and toxic cadmium
 GaAs
Up to 30%High light absorption coefficient and conversion efficiency, strong resistant of temperatureToo high cost
 CIGS
Up to 20%
Low cost, nonrecession, good weak light performance, wide applicability of substrate, adjustable optical band gap, and strong antiradiation abilityRare materials, the difficulty of controlling four elements precisely

PPVCBelow 5%Excellent mechanical properties and film-processing ability, low cost, flexibility, and simple manufactureLow conversion efficiency,
unstable performance
Nanocrystalline
TiO2 solar cells
More than
10%
Simple manufacture, low cost, good stability, nontoxicity, and short energy recovery cycleLow conversion efficiency, immature research and development