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.