If you add in "rebuild all the transmission lines" to the cost then that would be good. Comparing some costs of renewables to total cost of nuclear is a fun pastime, but doesn't help the debate.

Nukes also involve big transmission line projects, so it is a wash,.

This seems to misunderstand the context. Previous poster was saying that with enough renewables hundreds or thousands of miles apart, there will always be enough power generation capacity.

The response was around how the newest transmission technology isn't so lossy. But that would mean we'd have to replace all transmission lines.

This doesn't apply to nuclear because it doesn't rely on generation potentially coming from 500 miles away to make it work.

Not nearly as much as requires to overcome the intermittency issue of renewable power sources.

To completely replace fossil fuel, you need a lot of nuclear plants and nuclear materials and transmission lines. For renewables you can handle a lot of the load near the consumption point and only need to transmit the “night load” which is usually much less.

I recommend you look at the estimates on how much storage and/or transmission lines are needed to go full renewable.

People will "estimate" all kinds of things according to their favored assumptions. Most are worth the paper they are printed on.

So if we can't trust statistics provided, how are we supposed to collectively discuss and reason about the options to determine the most economical one?

How many nuclear plants are required to go fully nuclear? I haven’t seen those estimates at all which is interesting