There are several interesting things in these reflections, and which concern avenues to see if AWE can progress towards something marketable.
Let’s start with the last two sentences, and especially the last one.
I was not present at the last AWEC, but we know that @Rodread particularly details the developments of his achievements, whether in official publications, conferences, and especially test videos which suggest the positive aspects (which are numerous) as well as the difficulties of the moment.
Does this mean that it would be desirable for other projects to benefit from such a detailed approach to enable AWE to increase its progress if possible?
Perhaps yes for other projects that have also reached a degree of feasibility.
For example, SkySails produced prototypes a few years ago that could produce 92 kW with 12 m/s wind speed, figure 15. Maybe a few units were released, but at the very least the market didn’t explode. What would be the difficulties encountered? Land and space use? Reeling pumping mode being too demanding for the material?Other?
The first sentence sounds like an echo of @dougselsam 's “idiots, idiots, idiots.”
The paradox is that Mike Barnard questioned the reality of AWE although and because very smart people were trying to implement: even brilliant minds could not save AWE of its inherent non-viability, according to him.
Maybe then everyone could agree on looking for something simpler and more functional. But what does that mean when this something simple should include flying elements, tethers, ground stations, generators, control systems…?