If you listen to practically anyone speaking today, you may have heard a new phrase: “I’m just saying . . . .”

The phrase is used most often at the end of a statement to distance the speaker from what they have just said. For instance, I have noticed that someone can say something that might be offensive to the listener and then add, “I’m just saying,” at the end to soften the blow. It’s as if they are saying, “I am making this statement but it’s not coming from me—I’m just passing it along.”

“I’m just saying . . . .”

The inference is that the speaker doesn’t have the facts to back up what they say nor do they really believe it themselves.

“I’m just saying . . . .”

I have also noticed that the user of the phrase oftentimes raises both hands in a modified ‘I surrender’ gesture to add emphasis.

“I’m just saying . . . .”

So why write about this tortured use of the English language in an article about energy policy and the electric cooperatives? The answer is that I am hearing the phrase more and more when talking to people about the future of energy supply in Michigan, and nationally.

“Coal-fired generation is the worst thing to ever happen to the environment and the country should simply ban the burning of coal for energy,” they say. “I’m just saying . . . .”

Or, they say, “I’m just saying, we can meet all of our future energy needs with renewable energy and conservation alone. We don’t need to build another power plant, ever.”

It’s as if the speaker does not need to support their position on the facts if they just add the magic phrase to the end of their statement. The problem is that adding “I’m just saying” to the end of a statement does not make it true nor defensible.

Take for instance those who think that the country should simply ban the use of coal-fired generation. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports that coal generation supplies 50 percent of the total electric energy in the United States. The next closest is natural gas at 20 percent and nuclear energy at slightly less than 20 percent of electricity per year.
We used 112,556,739 megawatt hours (mwhs) of electricity in Michigan in 2006, according to EIA, with approximately 60 percent, or 67,801,004 mwhs being supplied by coal-fired generation.

A 1.65 megawatt (mw) wind turbine, spinning at absolute peak efficiency in high wind 24 hours a day could produce 14,454 megawatts per year. So, in a perfect world, it would take 4,690 wind turbines to replace the coal plants now generating electricity in Michigan.

But the wind doesn’t blow all the time at the speeds required to turn the turbine blades for maximum output. A realistic, but still generous, capacity factor (the actual availability of wind) is about one-third. So, we’d realistically need more than 14,000 wind turbines in Michigan to totally replace coal. And, even then we would need backup generation, most likely natural gas-fired, for the 60 percent of the time the wind is not blowing.

A wind farm requires about 100 acres per turbine, although each turbine only requires 1/4 acre. The state’s only wind farm, Harvest Wind Farm in Huron County, with 32 turbines, covers an area of 3,200 acres.

So, 14,000 wind turbines would need about 1.4 million acres of land area. That’s more than twice the amount of good wind area available in the state, according to the Land Policy Institute at Michigan State University.

So, maybe we need to be a bit more pragmatic when we consider future power sources.

We will build more renewable energy generation; that is a given. Last month, the Michigan House passed legislation requiring all utilities to include at least 10 percent renewable energy in their power supply mix by the end of 2015. The electric cooperatives supported the legislation. We recognize that renewable energy will be part of the power supply picture.

The House also passed a bill that requires utilities to implement energy efficiency measures that will reduce consumption by 1 percent per year by 2012, and beyond. The electric cooperatives supported this legislation, as well. Again, we understand energy efficiency will be part of the solution.

We understand that new base load generation will be part of the solution, too. The recent study by the Michigan Public Service Commission supports the addition of at least one to two base load power plants by 2015 and recommends coal as an option. We recognize that the next generation of coal power plants will be more than 20 times cleaner than existing coal plants and will be able, when the technology is ready, to capture CO2, but these plants will be more expensive.

At the end of the day, the U.S. and Michigan will not be able to craft energy policies that rely on just one solution. A balanced approach is all that will work. The solution will incorporate renewable energy, energy efficiency and conservation, technology, and new base load generation, including coal-fired and nuclear generation. It is the only practical way to meet our ever-growing demand for electricity at a price that is affordable.

And I’m not just saying . . . .