Guys, let me boil it down for you:
Standard “Propeller”:
We in wind energy experience an endless parade of supposed improvements on the already-minimalist “Standard propeller-style” wind turbine, which is literally the result of thousands of years of refinement. The same basic “propeller” form serves many uses, both for moving air and water, and for propelling aircraft and watercraft Obviously, the “standard propeller” form has turned out to be very useful, and has in fact become “the way” to accomplish energy transfer from a moving fluid.
Magnus Rotor:
The magnus rotor is a curiosity that has been around for over 100 years, in which time there has been no compelling use-case found for it. Magnus rotors have been tried as sails for boats, wings for airplanes, and maybe even blades for propellers and wind turbines(?). In all cases, it has been found to be suboptimal, compared to just using airfoils. There is no product or machine using magnus rotors in existence today, despite much curiosity and attempts to develop it. Just as you see zero happy owners of vertical-axis turbines, there are zero magnus devices in production. (Contrast with the abundance of ripoff vertical-axis disappointments available on Ebay) You can’t even find a ripoff nonworkable plastic wind energy device device using the magnus effect for sale anywhere!
So, without going into all the details, but simply on the basis of whether the rotating cylinder, as an aerodynamic component, has been found advantageous, (not) it would seem unlikely that a wind energy device using magnus rotors would turn out to be advantageous. This type of analysis uses simple reality, information available to anyone and everyone, rather than publishing painstaking and elaborate theoretical analyses going on for many of pages. Which is more valid? Well, every once in a while, common sense turns out to be the best approach to knowledge.
Now Pierre does raise a valid point, that a cylinder can contain more helium than a typical airfoil with a thinner profile, and that magnus rotors can develop significant lift. So I would not say that it is proven that magnus rotor reeling systems could not take over wind energy, but on the common-sense observation of the usefulness of magnus rotors thusfar, it would seem unlikely.
Having said that, however, it would be an overstatement to say there is no case to be made for what Pierre is proposing, or magnus-reeling for wind energy capture, like Omnidea for example, in general. As some people say, “you can’t prove a negative”, so my mind remains open, but also I should say that for people like me who have seen so many bad ideas over the years, it falls into the highly-questionable category, and I’m not inclined to try to absorb all the details of every (probably) bad idea in wind energy that comes along.