Now I'm confused: this thread was about morality, not budgets of nuclear. Even if they go over budget and go late, so does everything else - even then costs have no bearing on morality.
You brought up the nuclear.
And your argument here is another false one "oh, everyone is just as bad"
Which is bullshit. Wind and solar projects are typically brought in on time, on budget - and with an initial timeline far shorter than a nuclear build.
Your "transmission strain" argument is bullshit as well. Last year, Texas had ~20% renewables for overall electricity production. There is no state incentive or mandate to do so at that level (we passed the GWB goal many years ago). That's more than triple the rate of renewables for the USA as a whole. Texas (ERCOT) has a very isolated grid - nobody's balancing with neighbor grids. It's a competitive market.
What's the really interesting part? The development pipeline. Projects far enough in planning to be registered with ERCOT.
<2 GW CCNG ("base load")
6 GW NG turbines (peakers)
35 GW of wind
65 GW of solar
5GW of batteries + CAES.
Texas energy companies aren't building these projects for fun, or for the environment - they're building them because they expect the projects to make the money.
Even with the glut of cheap natural gas, it's cost effective to do a massive buildout of renewables. Dozens of energy companies have come to the same conclusion.
Why? The all-in cost for building new wind and solar in many locations is cheaper per kwh than the natural gas in a paid-off plant. When there's no wind or sun? Fire up some NG turbines. They typically have a capacity factor of about 10% (ie, being used only ~10% of the time).
The next 5 years is going to see a huge increase in renewable sourced electricity in Texas. From a starting point far ahead of the USA as a whole.