The discourse within the solar energy industry,particularly regarding the competition between Bifacial Cell (BC) technology and Tunnel Oxide Passivated Contact (TOPCon) technology,has been set ablaze since LONGi Green Energy made its position clear in September 2023 regarding its commitment to investing in BC technology.This announcement sparked an extensive debate among industry experts,particularly as leading TOPCon companies like JinkoSolar began to venture into BC production on a smaller scale.The question arises: has BC technology triumphed in this battle?The answer is complex,as indicated by industry leader Zhang Yingbin,who stated that since BC companies are also embracing TOPCon technology,why shouldn't TOPCon enterprises explore the potential of BC capacity?

Zhang elaborated that if Trina Solar recognizes a significant demand from clients who are willing to pay a premium for aesthetically appealing products,there could be a shift towards BC technology.Yet,this exploration does not preclude the ongoing advancement of TOPCon 3.0 and perovskite tandem solar cells as core products.This perspective illustrates that the current industry debate may not solely represent a technical rivalry but rather a discussion about the immediate relevance of TOPCon and the potential future ascendancy of BC technology.

The consensus among many industry insiders revolves around the idea that there is no rigid divide between TOPCon and BC technologies.Far from being mutually exclusive choices,these technologies have a level of compatibility that could allow for synergistic advancements.BC technology,with its inherent flexibility,can be integrated with various N-type technologies,including TOPCon and Heterojunction (HJT),essentially forming what could be classified as TBC or HBC.This compatibility suggests a potential for future innovations rather than a decisive win for one technology over the other.

Recently,various studies conducted by BC and TOPCon manufacturers attempting to compare the two technologies' energy generation efficiencies yielded drastically different conclusions.This discrepancy might be attributed to distinct generational performance differences between the products being compared.For instance,comparing a second-generation BC product against a TOPCon 1.0 technology might not accurately reflect their potential in the upcoming market landscape.As we look toward 2025,it is anticipated that both second-generation BC and TOPCon 2.0 products will enter the market en masse,suggesting that the real contest between these technologies is only just beginning.

TOPCon technology,for example,is currently grappling with issues of overcapacity and product homogenization.Many firms have engaged in reckless expansions,leading to an imbalance between supply and demand in the market.However,leading companies in the industry are not merely sitting idly by; instead,they persistently focus on upgrading and enhancing their operations.Significant resources are being directed towards improving conversion efficiency and lowering production costs associated with TOPCon technologies.Concurrently,top-tier firms are increasingly prioritizing intellectual property protection,constructing substantial barriers to technological diffusion by bolstering patent portfolios.Such initiatives are poised to notably decelerate the pace of technological advancement across the industry.As technical refinements continue,even if the resulting products bear the same TOPCon label,variances in performance and quality attributable to nuanced technological details will allow market players to differentiate amongst themselves,leading to a harsh competitive culling where only the strongest may thrive.