>If you need to increase the spacing by 500% to improve LCOE by ~2% that's dumb, I'm sorry.

That's not what the study says, is it? At least not according to the way I read the article.

It seems like there is a trade-off between the cost of land and the energy output, and their analysis tells you where the sweet spot is in the middle. From the article:

> Through the modeling, the group ascertained that the optimal levelized cost of energy (LCOE) point was $0.29/kWh, with row spacing varying between 4.83 and 7.34 meters. With two-meter spacing, the LCOE was $0.33/kWh, and with 11 meters it was $0.36/kWh.

Note that very close spacing (2m) and very wide spacing (11m) are both worse than intermediate spacing (4.83-7.34m).

They mentioned agriculture, but I don't think their analysis takes that into account. I think it's just a perk that they're throwing out there as a conceivable side benefit of wider spacing.

I suppose it depends on whether space or number of panels is your limiting factor. Hypothetically if you had a hill to build a solar farm on you could cover it in solar panels. But you might have a whole hill and 500 panels so in that case the spacing could play a much bigger factor.

Wouldn’t spaced out solar above pasture land work?

In my experience it works well with organically grown perennial crops that benefit from noon shade(many berries do for example). And also for grazing, especially by sheep as they don't tend to mess with the panels.