What shaped the solar industry most over the past decade?
Technology. Policy. Cost. Demand.
So many different answears – and honestly, every one is right. Because the real story isn’t about one driver. It’s about how all four reinforced each other, creating a feedback loop that turned photovoltaics from an expensive alternative into the cheapest source of new electricity in most of the world.
We decided to look at this transformation from our perspective – the perspective of people who design and manufacture what holds the panels up. Because when the industry changes, the structure underneath has to change with it.
Where we started
Fifteen years ago, utility-scale PV was a different world.
Modules were smaller, heavier relative to their output, and significantly more expensive. A 250W panel was standard. System costs were high enough that every project needed generous subsidies to close. Feed-in tariffs in Germany, Spain, and Italy were the engine behind early deployment – and when those tariffs were cut or restructured, entire markets stalled overnight.
From a structural engineering standpoint, the challenges were real but relatively straightforward. Modules were uniform in size, wind and snow load standards were well-established for the formats in use, and most projects followed a limited set of configurations. The mounting structure was, in many cases, a simple commodity decision.
That started to change – faster than most people expected.
The technology curve that changed everything
The most visible transformation happened at the module level. Cell sizes grew from 156mm to 182mm to 210mm. Module power jumped from 250W to 400W to 500W to, today, well beyond 700W. Bifacial technology moved from laboratory curiosity to industry standard. Half-cut cells, multi-busbar designs, TOPCon, and heterojunction architectures pushed efficiencies into territory that seemed theoretical just a few years ago.
For developers, this meant fewer modules per megawatt, fewer connections, faster installation, and lower balance-of-system costs. Beautiful on paper.
But for the structure underneath? Every leap in module size created a new engineering conversation.
Larger modules capture more wind force. They accumulate more snow on a single table. They flex differently under load, which changes how clamping solutions need to perform. Purlin distances that were standard for one generation of modules may not provide adequate support for the next. Tracker systems had to adapt to heavier, wider panels without compromising reliability over a 25-year lifespan.
Another factor that increasingly influences structural design is the way module manufacturers optimize production costs. In practice, this often means reducing frame thickness and the amount of material used in the module frame itself.
For mounting structure manufacturers, this introduces an additional layer of engineering complexity. The specific mechanical characteristics of each module – including frame rigidity and load transfer behavior – need to be carefully considered already at the design stage. In large-scale projects, standard assumptions are often no longer sufficient, which makes direct technical dialogue with module manufacturers essential when defining key structural parameters.
The mounting structure industry didn’t just grow alongside module innovation. It had to reinvent itself – repeatedly – to keep up.
Policy: the invisible architecture
Technology may have driven costs down, but policy decided where and how fast solar was built.
The European renewable energy directives, national auction systems, carbon pricing mechanisms, and grid access frameworks created the market conditions that turned engineering potential into deployed megawatts. Countries like Germany, Spain, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, and Italy each developed their own regulatory ecosystems – with their own permitting timelines, technical requirements, and documentation standards.
For a mounting structure manufacturer operating across multiple European markets, this meant something very practical: one design doesn’t fit all. A structure certified for the German market needs Standsicherheitsnachweis documentation. Projects in Romania require compliance with local seismic and wind zone regulations. Nordic markets demand engineering for extreme snow loads and specific corrosion environments.
Policy didn’t just shape demand. It shaped the technical complexity of every project.
And as renewable targets became more ambitious – the EU’s REPowerEU plan, national climate laws, the push toward 2030 goals – the pressure on speed, scale, and quality increased simultaneously. More projects, tighter timelines, higher expectations. The industry had to professionalize, and fast.
The cost curve: from subsidy-dependent to market-competitive
Perhaps the most remarkable story of the past decade is the cost trajectory.
Solar electricity moved from being one of the most expensive sources of power to one of the cheapest – in barely fifteen years. LCOE reductions were driven by a combination of module efficiency gains, manufacturing scale, supply chain maturation, and competitive auction mechanisms that forced developers to optimize every element of their projects.
This had a direct and sometimes uncomfortable effect on mounting structures.
When system costs were high, the structure represented a smaller share of total project value. As module and inverter prices fell, the relative weight of the mounting system in overall project economics increased. Suddenly, structural optimization wasn’t just an engineering exercise – it was a commercial imperative.
This is where material science became a competitive differentiator. Advanced coatings like Magnelis® – offering corrosion resistance several times better than standard galvanization, with self-healing properties and thinner application – allowed manufacturers to reduce material use without compromising durability. Lighter profiles, optimized cross-sections, and smarter connection designs became tools for reducing cost while maintaining or improving structural performance.
The cost curve didn’t just reward cheap. It rewarded efficient.
Demand: scale creates its own logic
Global solar installations crossed 1 TW of cumulative capacity. Annual deployment now exceeds what took years to build in the early days of the industry. Markets that barely appeared in solar statistics a decade ago – Romania, Poland, Bulgaria, Greece – are now installing gigawatts per year.
Scale changes everything.
When you’re building a few megawatts, custom solutions are manageable. When you’re building hundreds of megawatts across multiple sites in a single year, you need standardized engineering, reliable production capacity, predictable delivery timelines, and supply chain discipline that doesn’t break under pressure.
For mounting structure manufacturers, this meant investing in production infrastructure – not just engineering talent. At enson, our factory capacity exceeds 1.5 GW annually. That’s not a marketing number. It’s the result of a deliberate decision to build the kind of production backbone that allows us to serve utility-scale projects across ten European markets without compromising on quality or lead times.
Demand also created a new kind of technical dialogue. As EPCs and developers gained experience, their questions became sharper. Not just “what’s the price per watt?” but “how does this system perform under our specific wind zone conditions?”, “what’s the optimal pile depth for this soil type?”, and “can we adjust the table configuration to improve energy yield without increasing structural cost?”
The conversation matured. And that maturity is, perhaps, the most important change of all.
What stayed the same
Amid all this change, some fundamentals didn’t move.
Physics didn’t change. Wind still pushes. Snow still accumulates. Steel still corrodes if you don’t protect it. Soil still varies from one end of a site to the other. Gravity is still undefeated.
The need for site-specific engineering didn’t change. Despite industry-wide standardization, every project still has its own terrain, its own soil conditions, its own regulatory environment, and its own set of constraints that require careful technical attention.
And the importance of early involvement didn’t change. The best outcomes – in terms of cost, performance, and timeline – still come from projects where the structural conversation starts early. Before layouts are locked. Before procurement decisions narrow the options. Before someone discovers, mid-construction, that the soil doesn’t behave the way the feasibility study assumed.
What’s next
The next decade will bring its own transformations. Agrivoltaics. Floating PV.
Solar-plus-storage hybrids. Even larger module formats. New markets with new regulatory frameworks. Increasing pressure on sustainability, circularity, and end-of-life planning.
From a structural engineering perspective, every one of these trends means new loads, new configurations, and new technical questions that need rigorous answers.
We’re not worried about that. We’re excited.
Because if the last decade taught us anything, it’s that the solar industry rewards those who combine engineering discipline with adaptability. Those who invest in R&D, not just production. Those who treat the mounting structure not as a commodity, but as a critical system that determines whether a project performs reliably for 25 years – or doesn’t.
The industry moved from niche to baseline. The structure underneath made sure it stayed there.