Here are a few examples:
the area used for wind turbines is large, but it is usually re-usable for agriculture, or increasingly off shore
official nuclear death are low - but there is a lot of dispute on the "long tail" of long term deaths from the big nuclear disasters of Ukraine and Japan
they (correctly) mention the environmental cost of materials for renewable energy, but ignore the similar pollution of Uranium mining and enrichment
4th generation nuclear reactor are still not even past the design stage. How can anyone even put a price tag on these ?
3rd generation nuclear reactor are more expensive than claimed in the article. The real prices of real reactors in the real world in the past decade are x3 the expected costs.
There is simply not enough uranium for a full build out of 3rd generation nuclear. 4th generation will be required, and it is still in the r&d stage
There is no mention of the huge problem of load-following when using nuclear plants. You cant just assume 90% CF and then ignore this.
Most importantly, IMHO, they completely ignore the learning curve for solar & wind. This is a proven trend, over last decades, appears to be set to continue, and completely changes the discussion.
And on and on....
My own views are pro-nuclear AND pro-renewable. But this requires a scientific and accurate discussion!