To be fair, the number of people killed directly or indirectly from Chernobyl (as well as children born with birth defects, higher cancer rates regionally, etc) is hotly disputed and certainly higher than the "official" tally.
The number of people killed just by coal power plants in Europe is around 20k a year, choosing to abandon nuclear without clean alternatives in place first was irresponsible.
I totally agree, but it's disingenuous to compare estimated indirect deaths from coal plants to direct deaths of a nuclear accident that was covered up for decades with no good estimate of the indirect deaths and illness from exposure.
To the extent that the comparison is disingenuous, I would think it's because we're comparing the criminal mismanagement of a Soviet nuclear facility with ordinary coal facilities. Frankly Chernobyl wouldn't happen in the west (and thus using it as a reason not to invest in nuclear seems disingenuous), and certainly not with newer, smaller, and safer reactor designs.
> a nuclear accident that was covered up for decades
The cover-up of Chernobyl lasted barely days.
> with no good estimate of the indirect deaths and illness from exposure.
Only a multitude of studies. The current consensus in the scientific community is that somewhere around 20,000-30,000 total deaths attributable to Chernobyl have or will occur.