The NIA blog post doesn't even address the core point of the paper. It looks at a correlation of existing energy by US states, where our nuclear was largely built in the 1970s and 1980s.
In contrast, the academic paper looks at what has happened to countries , globally, that have tried to build nuclear since the 1990s.
And this is a crucial distinction, because the problem with nuclear is that economies have changed since the 1970s and we have new technologies with different costs.
So what if we look at what has happened to US states that, since 1990, have tried to build nuclear versus those that have tried to build renewables?
Nuclear has failed since the 1990s in the US, even with construction project with very strong community support and federal regulatory support from the NRC.
So when you ask the question that the paper asks: "does building new nuclear or renewables decrease carbon more with modern economies?" We see that the US recapitulates the same correlation that researchers found globally.
This huge bias of nuclear proponents, the inability to address the cost issue and very basic construction issues, is far more problematic for nuclear than a corrective analysis of what has happened to grids that have pursued different strategies.