Wet cloths left for hours equals mold.
No it does not.

Peak pricing helps a bit but is not a complete solution
A solution to what?

You actually don't know what you are talking about. Bringing peak and off peak into your talks does not help your point of view.

And they sit wet in the washer until you put them in the drier. No one in his sane mind uses a drier anyway. No idea why you base your arguments around that.
And: there exist washing machine / drier combinations. If you need a drier so desperately why don't you by a combo?

Agreed, nevertheless: I'm right and the parent was wrong.
Perhaps you should have stayed more on topic than on orthography?

Likely Solstats.

Like the parent my energy bill is dropping every year, but the news claim the price per kw/h would increase.

For me it did not increase since ten years or more.

Modern wind turbines are at about 40-50% capacity factor.
Already then, someone made a mistake setting up the plant at that spot.

You should not place a wind plant at a place where you have less than 4000 hours per year maximum/rated yield. If you do that right you are automatically above 50% CF.

A perfect placed ... usually off shore ... wind turbine has a CF of 200% - 400%

That is why you use a kite and not a balloon.
Also you don't let the turbine fly but use the tension on the cable to run a generator on the ground.
But well, there are flying turbine concepts, too.

Exactly, it can't happen.

If there is a wind strong enough to destroy a wind turbine, you have far worse problems than worrying about the blades/turbine.

E.g. you lose all over land transmission lines, regardless of power plant technology connected to it.

Your roads, houses etc. will be gone too. Actually I doubt you have any survivours in such an event in the area covered by such a storm.

God invented that marvelous thing: called a cable!
He (or She?) gave it to mankind to connect renewable power plants to the caves the humans live in!

Just to sad, that grid companies and power companies don't know how to use cables ... (* facepalm *)

Or to put it another way, suppose a solar panel will produce the energy equivalent of 4x it's energy investment over 20 years (which is about right with today's technology).
No it is not right.
a) Solar panels repay their energy production "bill" after 6 month
b) Solar panels degrade over time, so that after 30 years they produce only 75% of what they did before.
So in 30 years they produce like 120 times the mount of energy they costed to produce. And they easy last a century or longer, depending on the "installation" not on the "panel".

From a mathematical perspective, EROEI appears to makes no sense.
Either because your math is wrong, or your numbers are wrong.
No idea why people come up with the brain dead idea that renewables don't pay off energy wise.
Germany produces about 30% of its energy with renewables ... where did the energy come from to build those "non EROEI working" plants?

Perhaps you should google?

And use different terms, no one actually says: EROEI

But rest assured, for solar panels the time needed to regenerate the energy used to build them is about 6 months, for big wind turbines not more than a year.

So: we are not doomed :D

Denmark [...] and their wind is pretty shitty
What is that supposed to mean?

because electricity takes time to move
While single electrons move slow, at the rate of mm/sec, energy/power moves with light speed.
Actually the lake analogy is more appropriated than the channel one :D

For the up to 8 hours you wet cloths sit in the washer what happens?
It gets a bit more crumbled :D
What if one lives in an apartment building?
Erm, what? What is the problem? I have my lines in my bath and a laundry rack.
Or covered in bird crap.
They usually don't come into my flat.

Little of this will be re-scheduled based on the cost of electricity. Are you really going to get up at 3AM to do laundry?
The washing machine does that automatically for you.
If you look at those two graphs you will see that price has little or no effect on demand.
You are interpreting it wrong. If there was no peak price, the peak would be even higher.

because vast quantities of wind power destablizes grid
As does vast amounts of coal energy or nuclear energy.
Actually: the grid is not destabilized. Why? Because if you have "to much energy" you simply don't feed it into the grid.
Wow, that was simple.

A scrum meeting should not take more than 30 seconds per person, perhaps 90 for one or two persons, but not EVERY.

Sometimes you need more, sometimes you need less. By the way, Scrum masters are often bad at determining which communication is important and how long stand ups need to last on both the short and long ends.
Might be so, however it is clearly defined in Scrum what the stand up is about, you answer three questions:
a) what did you do yesterday and did you finish it
b) what are you planning to do today
c) are you blocked by obstacles someone has to remove for you

Every other discussion/communication has to happen outside of the Scrum meeting in smaller circles (so only the relevant people are involved).

More importantly, why is the Scrum community unwilling to discuss questions like this, simply saying "It's not true Scrum, so I don't care."?
As long as you have not implemented an agile method, regardless which one, there is nothing to discuss (about that method). So what is your point? If you have questions join the relevant mailing groups or e.g. the discussion groups on linkedin.com

When your standup meetings are longer than 30-60 seconds per person, that means in a team of 10: roughly 5 minutes, then you are not doing Scrum. If you can not even conduct a Scrum meeting in the way it is intended, then it is very likely that your other Scrum activities need improvement, too.

Your critics sounds like a guy who likes to lose weight, but instead of doing the every day 2 hour exercises only does every second day 45 minutes.

Instead of eating healthy breakfast and lunch and dinner and stopping snacks in between, he eats half of the usual breakfast, lunch, dinner but keeps the snacks.

Afterwards he claims: hey!! I at least did half of the stuff, so I should see half of the effect. And that is where he is wrong ... same with agile methods (or for a matter of fact: with any "process" regardless if for software or for material goods), you either implement them, or you don't. Cherry picking easy stuff and not doing those things right and then struggling to see a positive effect is just plain dumb.