Bifacial solar panels are often described as the future of solar technology. They can capture sunlight on both sides — the front absorbs direct rays while the back collects reflected light. On paper, this means more energy and better efficiency compared to traditional panels.

But does that mean they’re the right choice for every project? Not necessarily. Like any technology, bifacial solar panels come with drawbacks that should be carefully weighed before making an investment.

In this article, we’ll take an in-depth look at the disadvantages of bifacial solar panels. From higher installation costs to site limitations and maintenance challenges, you’ll learn why these panels aren’t always the most practical solution for homeowners and small businesses.

What Makes Bifacial Panels Different?

Traditional solar panels, known as monofacial panels, are designed to capture sunlight only from one side. Bifacial panels, by contrast, feature a transparent backsheet or dual-glass design that allows light to pass through and reflect back into the cells.

• Efficiency boost: Under the right conditions, they can generate 5%–30% more energy.
• Applications: They are most effective in large ground-mounted solar farms, open parking structures, and reflective surfaces like white rooftops or snowy fields.
• Drawback: Their performance depends heavily on the environment, which means not all users will see the same results.

Now let’s break down the specific disadvantages.

1. Higher Upfront Costs

The most obvious downside is the price difference compared to conventional solar panels.

• Manufacturing cost: Producing dual-glass or transparent-backsheet modules requires advanced materials and precision engineering.
• Installation cost: Specialized racking systems are needed to ensure sunlight reaches both sides, driving up expenses.
• Market premium: Bifacial panels can be 10%–20% more expensive than monofacial panels of similar wattage.

For homeowners, this can mean a higher initial investment without guaranteed payback unless conditions are near-perfect.

2. Complicated Installation

Installing bifacial solar panels is not as straightforward as installing traditional panels.

• Ground clearance: Panels need to be raised higher to allow reflected light to reach the rear side.
• Tilt and orientation: Extra care must be taken to maximize sunlight exposure on both surfaces.
• Mounting requirements: Standard racking systems often don’t work; you’ll need specialized, usually more costly, alternatives.

This not only increases the installation time but also requires experienced installers, which may not be available everywhere.

3. Heavier and Bulkier Design

Many bifacial panels are built with glass on both sides, which adds durability but also weight.

• Structural demands: Some rooftops may not be strong enough to handle the added load.
• Transportation issues: Heavier modules are harder to move and install, increasing labor costs.
• Limited suitability: This makes bifacial technology more practical for ground-mounted systems than for residential rooftops.

For homeowners, this added weight often outweighs the benefits.

4. Dependence on Surface Reflection

Perhaps the biggest limitation is that bifacial panels rely on the albedo effect — the reflectivity of the ground or surface beneath them.

• Best surfaces: White concrete, snow, or reflective coatings significantly boost rear-side generation.
• Poor conditions: Grass, soil, asphalt, or shaded rooftops provide little to no benefit.
• Inconsistent output: Energy gains vary widely depending on season, weather, and surroundings.

Without the right environment, bifacial panels may perform only slightly better than standard models, making the higher cost less worthwhile.

5. More Space Needed

To achieve maximum efficiency, bifacial systems often require greater spacing between rows of panels.

• Reduced density: Fewer panels can fit in the same area compared to tightly packed monofacial setups.
• Not ideal for rooftops: Limited roof space means homeowners can’t always take advantage of bifacial gains.
• Better for solar farms: These panels shine in utility-scale projects with plenty of land.

If you’re working with tight space, traditional panels usually deliver a better ROI.

6. Cleaning and Maintenance Challenges

With two active surfaces, bifacial panels naturally require more upkeep.

• Double cleaning: Both the front and rear sides need to stay free of dust and debris.
• Increased costs: Professional cleaning services take more time and care, raising maintenance expenses.
• Ground-level dirt: If panels are installed close to soil or sand, the back surface can quickly accumulate grime.

Neglecting maintenance reduces efficiency, which can offset the technology’s benefits.

7. Durability Concerns

The dual-glass construction improves transparency but also introduces potential weaknesses.

• Fragility: Glass is more prone to cracking under mechanical stress than plastic backsheets.
• Thermal stress: Extreme temperature changes can cause microcracks over time.
• Storm damage: In regions prone to hail or heavy storms, bifacial panels may not last as long as expected.

While they’re marketed as long-lasting, the added glass surface requires extra care.

8. Uncertain Real-World Energy Gains

Manufacturers often claim bifacial panels can produce up to 30% more energy, but real-world performance doesn’t always match projections.

• Variable conditions: Energy gains depend on geography, weather, and installation design.
• Seasonal differences: In winter or cloudy regions, the rear-side contribution is limited.
• ROI concerns: If the energy gain is closer to 5% rather than 30%, the long payback period may not justify the cost.

This unpredictability makes it harder for buyers to plan returns on their investment.

9. More Complex Planning and Certification

Because bifacial technology is relatively new, it comes with additional hurdles.

• Performance modeling: Calculating potential output requires advanced software and expertise.
• Regulatory uncertainty: Not all regions have standardized testing for bifacial panels.
• Investor hesitation: Financial institutions sometimes hesitate to back projects due to limited long-term performance data.

For commercial projects, this can delay timelines and increase planning costs.

10. Longer Payback Period

When you combine higher upfront costs with site-dependent efficiency, it often leads to longer ROI periods.

• Residential challenges: Most homeowners won’t recover their investment as quickly as with monofacial panels.
• Utility-scale exceptions: Large solar farms may still see solid returns due to economies of scale.
• Competing technologies: With monofacial panels and newer options like TOPCon becoming more affordable, bifacial systems lose some financial appeal.

For budget-conscious users, this extended payback period can be a major deterrent.

Who Should Avoid Bifacial Panels?

Bifacial solar panels may not be a good fit for:

• Homeowners with small or shaded rooftops
• Users with tight budgets looking for the fastest ROI
• Areas with low reflectivity surfaces (soil, grass, asphalt)
• Regions prone to hailstorms or strong winds
• DIY installers without access to specialized racking or expertise

Smarter Alternatives

If bifacial panels don’t suit your situation, consider:

• Monocrystalline panels – High efficiency, widely available, lower cost.
• PERC technology – Affordable and reliable for both residential and commercial use.
• TOPCon panels – Advanced cells that improve efficiency without complex mounting.

These options often deliver more predictable performance and faster payback periods.

Conclusion

Bifacial solar panels are a fascinating innovation, but they’re not the universal solution many assume. Their high upfront cost, complex installation needs, reliance on reflective surfaces, and longer ROI periods make them less practical for small residential projects.

They shine brightest in large, open, and reflective environments like solar farms or commercial setups, where the extra efficiency outweighs the drawbacks.

For homeowners or small businesses, however, monofacial or advanced single-sided technologies may be the smarter, more cost-effective choice.