We haven't figured out how to control costs with nuclear.
Known costs of a new project make them pretty much untenable, and they don't quite account for spent fuel (not for the full amount of time it will be dangerous). There's likely solutions to storing the spent fuel, but we aren't doing them.
Hopefully regulators take a look at resiliency and do things to improve it that would take less time than building new nuclear. In Texas it seems a modest improvement in natural gas pipelines would do a lot to improve the system. A study estimating the relationship between cold weather and available production would probably be seen as worthwhile by even the most radical anti-regulator.
Nuclear was outputting about 75% of its capacity, which was pretty good performance compared to the other sources.
At that rate, if we'd had 25 GW of additional nuclear capacity instead of 25 GW of wind capacity, we would have had another 15 GW of power available during the cold night hours, when wind was outputting only 3.5 GW of its 25 GW capacity.
Right. Clearly much of Texas was built with “it’ll never be below freezing for multiple days in a row”, which unfortunately has caused for an even greater disaster.