A recent Sheboygan Press headline which read, "Shooting the Breeze," was right on target.

Except in this case, the breeze was a lot of hot air.

The article highlighted the Random Lake School District's proposal to erect a wind turbine providing 10 percent of the school's electricity.

The article goes on to say that the hope is that two thirds of the $300,000 cost would be covered through grants and that the turbine could be useful as a math and writing teaching tool.

Now, as far as I'm concerned, the taxpayers of Random Lake can spend their money whichever way they like, but as with many good sounding proposals, the devil is usually in the details.

I am confident that the reporter covering this story would have had many questions, the answers to which unfortunately did not make it to print; no doubt for want of space.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am neither an investigative reporter nor an expert on the economics governing wind-generated electricity. I am, however, concerned about the seemingly Lemming-like move toward energy suicide.

One question that came to mind is: Just what is the educational benefit of the wind turbine?

We are told a writing class might find it instructive. I suppose the fine art of writing government grants certainly qualifies, with particular emphasis on embellishment of dubious ideas backed up with sketchy data.

As for the math benefit, I hope the students are permitted to calculate the true cost of the turbine, absent taxpayer support, including the eventual maintenance and replacement.

Random Lake's struggles with energy consumption and affordability of course is reflective of a national trend in alternative energy solutions. President Barack Obama has declared to double the nation's supply of the alternative energy in three years. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, wind and solar account for 1.1 percent of electricity consumption. Without production, tax credits and direct government subsidies, that low percentage would likely remain low.

Perhaps the students at Random Lake High will want to calculate the cost of the proposed Lake Erie wind turbines estimated to cost in the neighborhood of $78 million for the first three turbines. Even company officials admit the cost of electricity will be close to $0.23 per kilowatt hour as opposed to $0.04 for coal and $0.03 for nuclear.

I think it is instructive to compare the electricity-generating capacity of one average nuclear power plant with that of wind and solar. The numbers will vary depending on the size and location of the wind turbines as well as a generating capacity of the nuclear power plant. But the numbers are roughly this: 5,000 acres of solar panels or 2,500 wind turbines working round-the-clock equal one nuclear power plant.

If you've driven between Sheboygan and Fond du Lac, you surely have noticed the acre upon acre of wind turbines now littering the beautiful Wisconsin countryside. Imagine the view if Obama and Nancy Pelosi get their wish of 30 percent of the nation's electricity coming from wind and solar. No doubt that for every landowner currently benefiting financially from allowing wind turbines to be constructed on his property, there are surely others whose home values are in decline as a result. There is a reason Ted Kennedy is all for wind power except where he vacations in Cape Cod.

Democrats have been successful in framing the energy debate so that if you're for the environment, you have to be for the green agenda. Unfortunately, in the debate over climate change, there are two kinds of "green."

There are the "environmental greens" who will gravitate toward any non-fossil fuel source of energy, no matter the cost. And then there are the "business greens" who, having an aversion to carbon taxes and cap-and-trade, favor massive government subsidies to themselves.

This alliance of what I like to call the "well-meaning with the opportunistic" have so far been able to get the ear of lawmakers. As a result, we have municipalities like Random Lake believing they not only can save money but, according to The Press article, "be a visible symbol of what we can do in society."

The answer to the nation's energy needs is certainly complex and dependent on new and cleaner technology, and there may well be a place for wind and solar. However, the current trend to vilify fossil fuels and nuclear power and to elevate wind and solar to a level of importance they don't deserve is troubling.