7 Questions About First Solar's 2025 Outlook (From a Buyer Who Actually Uses Their Panels)

7 Questions About First Solar's 2025 Outlook (From a Buyer Who Actually Uses Their Panels)

I'm a project procurement manager for a mid-sized utility-scale solar developer. I don't sit in a boardroom and think about market share. I sit in meetings with EPC contractors and financiers, and I have to justify every module choice with real data.

Over the past few years, I've specified First Solar modules for a handful of projects (roughly 200 MW of capacity, give or take). Here are the questions my colleagues—and people like you—actually ask me about them.

1. Is First Solar's CdTe technology better than standard silicon panels?

Better is the wrong word. It's different. Standard crystalline silicon (c-Si) panels are everywhere and have a high efficiency ceiling. But First Solar's cadmium telluride (CdTe) thin-film technology has a unique advantage: it performs better in real-world conditions, especially high heat and diffuse light.

I don't have hard data on every climate zone globally, but based on our projects in the Southwestern U.S. (Arizona and Nevada), the energy yield per rated watt was about 3-5% higher than comparable c-Si modules. The catch? CdTe modules are physically larger for the same wattage (circa 2025, at least). You need more racking and more land. For a giant, flat site in the desert, that's fine. For a constrained rooftop, it's a dealbreaker.

2. What's the real-world annual degradation rate?

First Solar claims an ultra-low annual degradation rate of less than 0.5% per year. For a 25-year power purchase agreement (PPA), that's a big deal. I've seen their warranty data and some third-party testing from NREL.

My experience is based on about 50,000 modules we've had in the field for 3-4 years. So far, the degradation is tracking at around 0.3-0.4% per year. But I'd be lying if I said I've validated this across a full 25-year cycle. The surprise wasn't the degradation itself—it was how consistent it was across different batches. That's rare.

3. Is First Solar's 2025 growth outlook as strong as the headlines suggest?

The headlines are about their backlog (66 GW as of late 2024) and their massive factory investments—the Louisiana facility, the new plant in Vietnam. Those are real. But the most frustrating part of this whole sector: everyone looks at backlog and assumes it's all revenue.

Here's the nuance. A backlog is orders that are signed but not yet delivered. Delivering 66 GW of modules over 3-5 years requires enormous manufacturing capacity, which First Solar is building (or rather, is in the process of building). The growth outlook for 2025 is strong because they have the capacity and the demand (driven by U.S. domestic content requirements). But the execution risk is real. I've seen module suppliers stumble on ramp-up timelines before.

4. What's the competitive advantage that actually matters to me (a buyer)?

It's not efficiency. It's not even really the degradation rate, although that helps. For me, the biggest advantage is the supply chain certainty and domestic content.

Under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), projects that use modules manufactured in the U.S. get a 10% bonus on the investment tax credit (ITC). First Solar's panels are made in Ohio, with more capacity coming online. That 10% bonus can make or break a project's financial model—especially when interest rates are higher. I'd rather pay a slight premium (maybe 1-2 cents per watt) for a module that guarantees that tax credit, than gamble on a cheaper import and risk an audit.

This is the big reason why, in 2024 and into 2025, First Solar's order book is so full. It's not just about the tech. It's about the policy environment.

5. Are there any hidden costs I should know about?

Yes. Two things.

First, the modules are physically larger. That means more shipping volume (costs more per container) and more racking (costs more per module). Our engineering team had to re-design the mounting structure for one project because the wind load calculations were different for the larger panel footprint.

Second—and I should add this—the electrical characteristics of CdTe modules are different from c-Si. Your inverter string sizing and combiner box design need to be re-verified. It's not a drop-in replacement for a silicon panel design. The module specs look different. (Should mention: this is standard for any technology switch, but it can catch you off guard if you're used to one thing.)

6. Is the 'record solar keeps China CO2 first' headline relevant to my buying decision?

Not directly. But it's a context-setting data point. China installed a record amount of solar in 2024, but its absolute CO2 emissions still grew (because of coal power demand). This isn't about First Solar specifically.

What it does tell me, as a buyer, is that the global solar market is enormous and growing, but the shift away from fossil fuels is slower than the installation rates suggest. That means: (1) raw material supply chains (like tellurium, or aluminum for frames) can have price volatility, and (2) policy support for solar (like the IRA) is crucial for maintaining investment momentum. For First Solar, their U.S. manufacturing base is a hedge against that supply chain uncertainty, which is a plus.

7. What about the competition? (You said not to attack them)

Right. I can't comment on specific brands like LONGi or JinkoSolar. But I can say that choosing between thin-film (CdTe) and crystalline silicon is a design decision, not a value judgment. For our fixed-tilt, ground-mount projects in the desert, CdTe works great. For a bifacial, single-axis tracker project on a narrow site, I'd probably use high-efficiency n-type TOPCon silicon modules—which First Solar doesn't make.

The secret is that there isn't one 'best' module. The best module is the one that optimizes the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for your specific site, PPA terms, and financing structure. That's the real job of a project buyer. Not picking a winner, but solving a puzzle.

—

Note: Pricing data and specific project financials are confidential. The technology comparisons are based on my own experience and publicly available datasheets (circa early 2025).