The problem with comparing the cost of different energy production means is that most of these have huge externalities. After all, this is why we're still burning hydrocarbons, because they seem cheap compared to anything else, except that we have massed up a huge debt by accelerating climate change. Something that may turn out to be nearly infinitely expensive.

Now the problem with solar and wind is that those also have pretty large energy investment needs at the beginning and given that we still mostly run on hydrocarbons these will also look cheap (include a sizeable amount of externalities).

Other than that, you're right that these articles rarely mention the problem of the fissile uranium supply. From what I've read and heard, without breeder reactors, the known U235 reserves won't last long if we plan to switch the world over. (Not that it's a viable plan to build so many reactors in time.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium