Is that the new hot take after "costs are too high because scale is too small"?
There are many issues with the economics of nuclear power but too much safety isn't one of them. The Chernobyl comparison conveniently ignores the liquidators by only looking at residents. Residents that have been evacuated, mind you. Even if radiation is not as harmful long-term as the LNT model makes us believe, which might very well be the case, we have to keep in mind what the forced evacuation of, say, New York, or Singapore would cost.
On top of that, nuclear power needs a lot of water. This means they can become less reliable, especially once they age.
And while coal power plants are on their way out, it is important to note how they have improved in terms of exhausts. Filters are a thing nowadays.
Finally, we have to compare NPPs with the alternative and that's not coal but PV and wind power combined with a large battery storage. Such a system is so much easier to deploy and starts production pretty much immediately. Whatever the economics of an idealized NPP are, that last fact alone will be hard to beat.
All that being said, it's important to note that NPP are an option to combat climate change. Like hydrogen, they are a technology that doesn't look as good as renewables, but that doesn't mean we don't need them. In the end, we need to put a price on a ton of carbon dioxide and then done everything that is cheaper than that price to avoid it.