Hanwha Qcells, a subsidiary of South Korea’s Hanwha Corp has set a world record for tandem solar cell efficiency. The company’s innovative M10-sized cell, featuring a perovskite-silicon structure, reached an impressive efficiency of 28.6%.
This incredible output surpasses the 27% efficiency of crystalline silicon cells and the 21% typical of standard commercial solar panels. They achieved this milestone just one year after starting large-scale tandem development, promising project size and cost reduction.
Danielle Merfeld, Global CTO at Hanwha Qcells.
“The tandem cell technology developed at Hanwha Qcells will accelerate the commercialization process of this technology and, ultimately, deliver a great leap forward in photovoltaic performance,” said “We are committed to advancing the next generation of solar energy efficiency and will keep investing significantly in research and development to drive progress in this field, as every kilowatt counts on the path to building a more sustainable future.”
Hanwha Qcells Redefines Solar Efficiency
The press release mentioned that the R&D team began groundwork in 2016 to develop a commercially feasible tandem solar cell using perovskite top-cell technology and Hanwha Qcells flagship silicon bottom-cell technology.
Eventually, in 2019, the solar giant launched an advanced research center in Pangyo, Korea that would complement their well-established R&D hub in Bitterfeld-Wolfen, Germany. After achieving success with small-area tandem cells, the focus shifted to large-area designs that finally culminated in the record-breaking 28.6% tandem solar cell efficiency.
Designing the Future of Solar
The certified record was verified by the CalLab at the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems (ISE). The high efficiency comes from an innovative design that pairs a perovskite-based top cell with Hanwha Qcells’ proprietary Q.ANTUM silicon bottom-cell technology.
This measurement, taken on a full-area M10-sized cell (approximately 0.36 square feet or 330.56 cm²) used a standard industrial silicon wafer that could be interconnected into an industrial module. The tandem technology stacks a perovskite top cell and a silicon bottom cell to optimize energy capture. Simplifying the technique, the top cell absorbs high-energy light while low-energy light passes through to the bottom cell to maximize power output per module.
So, what’s the advantage? Well, fewer panels generate the same power, which further reduces costs and land use for solar projects.
Significantly, Hanwha Qcells developed this tandem technology with commercial manufacturing in mind. They are focused on going beyond lab-scale demonstrations. With their scalable processes and tools, the company is all geared up for the next generation of efficient, cost-effective solar energy solutions.
Thus, this milestone moves the solar industry closer to the widespread commercialization of more powerful and affordable solar technology.
Robert Bauer, Head of Hanwha Qcells R&D in Germany noted,
“Hanwha Qcells is excited to announce this new world record in tandem cell efficiency based on our in-house developed perovskite technology as a top cell, and cost-efficient Q.ANTUM silicon technology as a bottom cell. The champion cell is a typical cell from our R&D pilot line in Germany and has been fabricated exclusively using processes that are feasible for mass production. This result is laying the groundwork for future commercialization of this exciting technology.”
Global Partnerships Drive Innovation
Hanwha Qcells’ is a global leader in solar energy. This unit manufactures high-performance solar modules and innovative storage systems. They have headquarters in Seoul and South Korea, and manufacturing hubs in the U.S., South Korea, and Malaysia. The company offers end-to-end clean energy solutions for utility, commercial, and residential markets worldwide.
Qcells’ R&D efforts have received significant support. The Pangyo R&D Center recognized as a national research institute, benefits from Korean government funding. Meanwhile, the Bitterfeld-Wolfen center is backed by a global network, including the German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action, the EU Commission, and the state of Saxony-Anhalt. Collaborative initiatives like the EU’s PEPPERONI project have further fueled progress.
Danielle Merfeld also added,
“We are fortunate to have outstanding global R&D teams and to have received invaluable support from our partners in Korea and Europe, leveraging their resources and expertise. We deeply appreciate everyone dedicated to driving innovations that bring us closer to achieving our climate goals.”
DOE Backs Qcells with $1.45 Billion Loan for Solar Supply Chain
The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Loan Programs Office (LPO) has finalized a $1.45 billion loan to support Qcells’ solar manufacturing facility in Cartersville, Georgia. Initially, in August 2024, DOE announced it as a conditional commitment but with this confirmation, the funding will help build a robust solar supply chain in the U.S.
The company noted that over the past decade, solar installations have surged. The U.S. alone had over 5 million installations, with a target of reaching 10 million by 2030. According to the U.S. Solar Market Insight 2023 Year in Review, total U.S. solar capacity is projected to hit 673 GW by 2034, enough to power over 100 million homes.
Furthermore, the IEA’s Renewables 2024 report predicts that global renewable energy will add 5,500 GW of capacity by 2030, with solar PV technologies driving 80% of this growth.
Energizing U.S. Solar Innovation
Qcells, a global leader in solar solutions and the largest silicon-based solar panel producer in the Western Hemisphere plans to invest $2.8 billion in this groundbreaking project. The Cartersville facility will produce ingots, wafers, cells, and panels on a multi-gigawatt scale.
Furthermore, on completion, the plant will have a production capacity of 8.4 GW, or approximately 46,000 solar panels per day. Rebuilding these critical parts of the domestic solar supply chain is a huge contribution to the U.S. energy independence and reduced carbon emissions.
Hanwha’s Commitment to Net Zero
Hanwha Solutions 2050 Net Zero goals align with the global target of limiting temperature rise to below 1.5°C. As per its latest sustainability report, it plans to cut Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 35% by 2030 and 60% by 2040, using 2018 as the baseline.
Some strategies include:
- improving energy efficiency
- adopting renewable energy
- utilizing by-product hydrogen as fuel
- incorporating carbon capture and utilization (CCU) technologies
The solar giant also purchases renewable energy through KEPCO’s Green Premium program. In 2023, the Chemical Division secured 53.7 GWh, and the Qcells Division obtained 27 GWh.
Notably, Qcells maximizes on-site renewable energy generation. Solar panels installed on rooftops and parking lots now produce 3.9 MW, with plans to add 2 MW in 2024. Last year, these facilities supplied 3.2 GWh of clean energy.
In conclusion, the DOE’s loan is a testament to the solar industry’s vital role in helping American manufacturers compete globally and succeed long-term. And Hanwha Qcells is just doing the job right. It’s advancing scalable manufacturing and high-efficiency solar cells, driving affordable and sustainable solar solutions.
The post Hanwha Qcells Shines with Record-Breaking Solar Cell Efficiency and $1.45 Billion DOE Loan appeared first on Carbon Credits.
More and more small and medium-sized businesses are hearing the same question from their larger customers: What is your carbon footprint? That question now travels down entire supply chains, and it arrives next to tender requirements, certification criteria, and rising customer expectations.
The accounting differences that decide whether your nature investment shows up in inventory, in BVCM, or nowhere at all.
The question reaches a procurement team about three weeks before the next sustainability committee meeting. Someone has read about insetting. Someone else has just signed off on an offset purchase. The CSO wants to know if the two are interchangeable. The answer is no, and the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard is the reason why.
This article walks through what each term means at audit-grade specificity, what the standards actually say about how each gets counted, and how to decide which tool fits which target. The insetting vs offsetting question is one of the most-searched in corporate climate strategy, and one of the most poorly answered. By the end of this piece, you should be able to brief a committee on the difference without notes.
The two definitions, in plain English
Offsetting means buying carbon credits generated outside your value chain and retiring them against your residual emissions. The reduction happens somewhere else, financed by you, and the credit is the receipt.
Insetting means investing in emission reductions or removals inside your own value chain, typically with suppliers, where the reduction is directly linked to the products and services you buy. The reduction happens inside the boundary of your Scope 3 inventory, and the accounting treatment is fundamentally different.
The shorthand from the University of Oxford’s Nature-based Insetting Initiative is useful: insetting is what you do with the supply chain you have; offsetting is what you do with the supply chain you do not have.
What the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard actually says
The GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, finalised in 2024 after a multi-year pilot, sets the rules for how land-based emission reductions and removals enter corporate inventories. The Standard distinguishes between inventory accounting (Scope 1, 2, and 3) and project or intervention accounting (a separate methodology for crediting).
For insetting, the practical implication is that supplier-level interventions, when properly measured and attributed, can reduce your Scope 3 category 1 (purchased goods and services) emissions in your inventory. The reduction is not a credit retired against the inventory; it is a lower inventory number, period.
For offsetting, the credit is retired separately. It can be reported as a contribution toward a net-zero claim under the SBTi Beyond Value Chain Mitigation framework or as part of a VCMI Carbon Integrity claim, but it does not lower the inventory number.
A practical consequence: if your Science Based Target requires a 50% absolute reduction in Scope 3 emissions by 2030, insetting moves you toward the target. Offsetting does not. This single point of difference reshapes the procurement decision.
When insetting counts toward Scope 3 (and when it does not)
Insetting counts toward Scope 3 only when several conditions are met:
- The intervention must occur with an entity in your value chain.
- The emissions reduction or removal must be measured against a defensible baseline.
- The reduction must be attributed to your share of that supplier’s output, not double-counted with other buyers.
- It must follow the inventory accounting rules in the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard, not the project accounting rules used to generate credits.
The most common failure mode is double counting. If your supplier sells the same reduction as a credit on the voluntary market and also reports it to you as a Scope 3 reduction, the math breaks. The Standard requires you to address this risk, typically by purchasing and retiring the supplier-issued credit as part of your inventory or by contractual provisions that prevent the supplier from selling the reduction twice.
When insetting does not count toward Scope 3: when the intervention sits with a supplier you do not buy from, when the baseline is not defensible, when the attribution is unclear, or when the documentation does not survive audit. Those cases default to Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, which is still useful but operates on a different ledger.
The procurement and supplier engagement question
Insetting is harder than offsetting. That is the unfashionable truth most buyers eventually confront. Offsetting is a transaction; insetting is a relationship.
To run an insetting program, you need supplier mapping precise enough to know which farms or facilities sit at which Scope 3 boundary. You need an engagement model that gets suppliers to participate, which usually requires multi-year commitments and shared economics. You need an MRV architecture that measures the right things and produces audit-ready documentation. And you need a contractual structure that prevents double counting and protects both sides.
The trade-off you receive in return is significant. Reductions count against your inventory rather than your residual. Supplier relationships deepen, which protects sourcing continuity. Yield and quality improvements often follow regenerative interventions, which reduces your input cost over time. And the regulatory file, under CSRD, CSDDD, EUDR, and the SBTi FLAG Guidance, is materially stronger.
Choosing the right tool for the right target
A practical decision rule. If your target is a science-based Scope 3 reduction and you operate in a FLAG sector or source FLAG commodities, insetting is the structurally correct tool. If your target is a net-zero claim that includes neutralising hard-to-abate residual emissions outside your value chain, BVCM via high-integrity offsets is the structurally correct tool. Most companies with material Scope 3 exposure need both, in different proportions, sequenced over time.
The sequencing matters. Insetting takes longer to stand up but produces a permanent reduction in the inventory. Offsetting can be transacted faster but does not change the inventory and now sits under tighter claim restrictions. Treat them as complementary tools with different jobs, not as substitutes. The Accountability Framework Initiative and the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions both provide useful guardrails for the insetting side, with biodiversity, human rights, and benefit-sharing requirements that go beyond carbon math.
If you are mapping a Scope 3 reduction roadmap and need to scope which interventions count toward your inventory versus which sit in Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you structure a nature-based supply chain investment program that fits your FLAG exposure, your target architecture, and your audit horizon. Schedule a consultation.
Net zero is often described as a balancing act: cut what you can, account for the rest, and reach zero on the ledger. That framing is useful, but it leaves something out. It treats every tonne of carbon as interchangeable and every route to zero as equally sound, while the science tells a more specific story.
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits