[embee]

I feel there are two issues at work here. The request for the CCC info was from "Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF), a climate sceptic think tank", so there was obviously an agenda to that. However the questioning of the assumptions is very valid. It sounds like the CCC report was based on a previous study by Imperial College, and it really depends on what part of that study was adopted and what the purpose of the original study was, e.g. was it an examination of various scenarios, and not intended to be a proposal for strategy? This what tends to happen, several possibles are considered by the academics and the politicians grab the one they like the look of. Don't necessarily blame the academics.

It sounds to me like they modelled what would happen if the tails of the wind spectrum varied, the actual harvesting would depend on the bulk availability of usable wind, the big bit in the middle of the spectrum. Too gentle wind, no good, too strong and also no good. The tails are probably not all that significant, +/-10% isn't usually a deal breaker in such things, the need for a reliable back-up source is critical though.

However in a wider sense, the current government seem to understand the word "plan" to mean making some extravagant target a law, or come up with a way to raise a set amount of money. Neither of these constitute a "plan".
A plan is what you intend to do to get to a certain outcome, not just a finger in the air wish or raising some cash to pay for something (health/welfare). Laws only apply to law abiding people, and if they worked there wouldn't be any crime by now.