It was a worst case scenario. Electricity will need to be moved around because of electricity production being concentrated in certain areas. Current loss to this is 5%. But electricity is mostly produced locally where its needed while with renewables it will not be possible to do as you state. You understand all this.
The argument started with nuclear being the most efficient way to go renewable. You haven't exactly explained how other renewables are more efficient. So i am not sure what your argument is right now. Is it possible that Solar and Wind can be as efficient or a bit more efficient than nuclear? Well yes, under specific best possible circumstances. Realistically though, it is not possible to produce it only in those places and move it not because its physically impossible but because the energy loss and battery construction prices will make this more inefficient compared to Nuclear which can produce locally in any place you build the nuclear power plant. Yes, power plants also have "requirements" for them to be built like some water, stable from earthquakes etc. Those places are ample in US and EU.
Most of your comparisons to nuclear appear to be worst case scenario.
I have pointed out that solar and wind is a third to a quarter of the price of nuclear by MWh produced according to Lazard. What this is really about is cost efficiency or bang for your buck, on this Nuclear has lost the edge due to the falling price of storage.
This means you can add significantly more to the grid for a fraction of the price. As I have previously highlighted research done says requirement for solar and wind to reach 80% of US energy requirements is an infrastructure cost of $1tn, a battery storage cost of around $500Bn. How much to add connections for hundreds of nuclear power stations to the grid?
If you cost the requirement of solar and wind to meet this you still do not get to the costs of nuclear. Even adding a 10% transmission loss to energy not used locally you still don't come close to the current difference in energy price. Adding in storage you still have a margin of $50 MWh to play with and the price of batteries and renewables is still falling.
As for it being impossible, it's already happening in the European energy market and that's why coal utilisation rates are falling in eastern Europe. It's becoming cheaper to import from neighbouring countries than rely solely on native fossil fuels. The grid is becoming more connected and more reactive to demand, allowing more of the energy produced by renewables to be utilised rather than wasted as was happening only a few years ago.
Please don't take this the wrong way but I hold the figures produced by leading researchers in the industry in higher regard than your calculations.
I'm going to repost this to highlight why you were wrong to use residential solar as a comparison and how much cheaper utility scale solar is to nuclear..