These plants were not "designed" to operate for only 40 years. 40 years was an arbitrary number chosen by regulators to ensure that safety and operability of the plant would be reviewed at least once during the useable life of the plant, No one would "design" a technology to only last 40 years. that would be silly.

I am also curious what the studies are that show an increase in infant mortality and learning disabilities. Can someone link those studies? I am curious ti know what the increase is compared to national average? Going from 0 to one is technically an increase but if the national average is say 3 then it is still well below average. Just aying there is an "increase" with no studies or qualifying data is very misleading.

I would like to see a study on the effects of replacing a nuclear plant with a coal plant, or natural gas plant the environment and population. Right now coal and gas are the only reliable forms of baseload power besides nuclear. I think it would be great if wind or solar could provide this but they cannot.

I just think people need tu understand that right now shutting diwn a nuclear plant is going to result in either a coal or gas plant picking up the "slack" and I don't think that is good for anyone.

Nuclear energy only provides 9% of the power to the U.S.

We could easily conserve that 9% and/or transition into truly clean energy sources.

Great strides have been made in truly clean energy sources:

SOLAR:
New breakthrough cuts the cost of solar in half:

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/03/ion-beam-manufacturing-halves-production-cost-of-pv-panels.ars

SOLAR:
24/7 BASELOAD Solar Power:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tonyseba/2011/06/21/the-worlds-first-baseload-247-solar-power-plant/

WIND:
"Japanese Breakthrough Will Make Wind Power Cheaper Than Nuclear"

http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/blogs/japanese-breakthrough-will-make-wind-power-cheaper-than-nuclea

GEOTHERMAL:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Szdx8F_g3Z0

It's time to stop investing in dangerous nuclear energy and instead spend the $$ on sources that don't require evacuation if there's a problem, and don't spew dangerous radiation into our air and water.

The nature of Patch.com is to address the local community. As such, your 9% figure is not relevant to the Limerick facility. Is it relevant to future discussions in the community about any future generation facilities? Perhaps, although I think the fact that majority of our power comes from COAL is a much greater concern. But dumping a bunch of links you scraped off your lobbyist site is not going to work. Instead of putting your money where your mouth is, your types seek to usurp government from the top down-- federal, superseding state, superseding the local community-- and thus appropriate the liberty and property of the communities for yourself. If you're truly excited about green energy-- and not just political power-- try expending your time and money on companies who are making it happen. Want to see what happens when we do it your way? Look at Spain and their 30% unemployment. By the way, I'm working on a solar power project for my own home, so no "you too" fallacy will work here.

In our area, we can only get about 3 KWh/m^2 per day. And that's with a tracking collector. And at 100% efficiency, which doesn't exist. Our best are maybe 20%. So you'll get 0.6 KWh/m^2 with a tracking collector. The Limerick generating facility generates 1,134 MW, per reactor, at 100%. That's a lot of real estate to replace it. Whose property will be seized by eminent domain this time?

Wind might work a little better, as long as the jokers who complain about the appearance of the nuclear plant aren't disturbed by the view of shorter, but much more numerous wind generators covering at least as many acres.

No, the plants were not designed to operate for 40 years but like an aircraft, how much of it is original after x number of years? Systems are overhauled and replaced.

Wind power, especially in this area is nothing but a talking point and a gimmick. Recall 14,000 wind turbines across the US have been abandoned due to extraordinary maintenance costs, high failure rate and due to what happens when the winds stops blowing. Even greenies are abandoning support because of the impact on birds and endangered species. Wind is inefficient, unreliable, and only works with subsidies. Mark my words - in the future, we'll be questioning "what were we thinking" in regard to these massive bird blending, property value degrading, radar jamming, noise polluting, wind-turbine-syndrome generating structures littering the countryside views.

Sean is right. Shutting down a nuclear plant will only result in more coal-fired plants and a spike in electric rates. I am all for nuclear. Limerick has done a phenomenal job in the 26 years of generation. Look at their safety record - it is one of the highest in the nation.

Stephens and Toms comments are amazingly accurate and relevant to this issue. Just the Facts just doesnt get it.

Yeah if only I could type today. I wrote: "Abandoning Economic suicide would result from abandoning nuclear power." <--- What is THAT, Tom? Wake up! I meant to say "Abandoning nuclear power would result in economic suicide."

Amazing lack of information of the 'locals' as to the dangers of nuclear power and it's radioactive waste. The health effects always seem to take second place to corporate profits. You might think the locals were the profiteers rather than potential cancer patients. I imagine it would get some steam out of them if their properties were condemned and they had to relocate due to a meltdown.