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.

Especially if they are followed by 'dM', like ROU dM Zealot or sometimes(usually?) written (d) ROU Zealot ...

Not to forget that VFP is usually an euphemism for (d) ROU, which is often enough only demilitarized in function, not in weaponry nor in spirit.

We use automated tools that generate web pages for reviews after each commit, I believe it is FishEye (now from Atlassian), but might be last time it was an OSS one.

Boils down to one (imho important) question: "can you answer the question: 'Who has added/changed a specific line of code when and why?' And possibly the next question: 'And how did you QA that change'?"

Turns out if you can answer this simple set of questions (correctly) you are basically on CMM 3 level.

If you can't you are very likely in a shit shop or shit development team.

What you do to be able to answer such questions: heavy weight process, light weight process, no defined process or defined process: that is up to you.

Ofc, if you have no "defined process" you are not on CMM 3 (because you would not win the audit), but you might be similar good in managing and conducting software development.

Should I go back and quote every line where you claimed: you can not simply call ObjectiveC/C from Swift because you need to have "special data structures" to marshal/unmarshal stuff?

You seem to forget what you wrote :D

Why are you now creating strawmen?
I guess no one is. As usually we both got sidetracked in the discussion and emphasized different things.

I emphasized that Swift and ObjectiveC are completely interoperable, while your very first posts tried to explain why they are not and how Apple could break that even more. I'm right and you are wrong in that regard.

The other stuff you talk now about never was relevant for me.

EMPHASIZE, I requote your quote:
"Well you're going to have a hard time writing for iOS9 if the iOS9 SDK doesn't come with Objective-C bindings for the API.

There is no Objective-C binding for Swift. As they are binary compatible there is no binding needed!

This is the only discussion point I actually cared about, and which I tackled and you started to site track ... so if at all: you are the guy creating strawmen, but I rather assume you simply were site tracked.

Now, go read a book about Swift, and I meanwhile doubt you grasp what marshaling does/is supposed to do and actually means. I would e.g. try to grasp what the difference is between "linking" and other ways of passing information is. Especially compare "in process" with "inter process" communication especially over networks or between storage systems and/or different hardware architectures. Most TCP/IP protocols might be interesting but you can also go on a higher level and think about CORBA or SOAP.

Even if you have to bridge paradigms "in process" ... like embedding a JScript engine into a C program (e.g. using swig) then the terms coming to mind are: proxy, bridge, wrapper. Not marshaling.

Ah, and regarding straw man: should I really go back and copy/paste all your programming exercises and claims that my quick solutions would be wrong? In all those exercises you tried to claim: a Swift structure can not be accessed from C/Objective-C with out "magic", while my point was: there is nothing special needed (perhaps I should have informed you earlier that XCode automatically generates a .h file for every Swift class, but as that was a no brainer I assumed you knew that. As Objective-C has more reflection support Swift does not need anything special for calling/using Objective-C stuff. However I would not wonder if the Swift compiler glances at the .h files of the Objective-C libraries as well)

To summarize: my only point of argumentation is: your idea how different programming languages interact "in the same process", aka linked (either dynamic or static) and cross VM / runtime: is technically wrong.