I think that depends on where you draw the line around the term "coal plant." There have been plenty of coal ash disasters that result in years of exclusion (for purposes of habitation, drinking water, fishing, etc.)[1][2][3][4]

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_Creek_flood

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_County_coal_slurry_spil...

[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_County_water_crisis

Exclusion zones are great for nature:

https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/how-chernobyl-ha...

So The "worst case scenario" for nuclear power is creating a new wildlife park free from human interference.

If you look at net damage to the planet, fossil fuel burning energy sources kill literally 8 million+ people a year. Coal plants are vastly more radioactive than nuclear plants, and the effects of burning coal will have a vastly outsized share of damage to the planet in the long than nuclear. Its effects are just less concentrated to a single area.

And not all nuclear plants are the same. I don’t think it’s reasonable at all to compare Chernobyl to modern reactor designs, just because they both use the word “nuclear”.

Apso not sure if you are including coal mining, and all of the deaths and negative health outcomes as a result of the industry

Most of the exclusion zone is political nonsense. And overall coal has made much more areas much worse to live in. I rather live in the exclusion zone then next many coal plants.

Also there is a single case that happened from a non-western design. When looking at western countries like France, it shows how incredibly safe the whole industry is end to end.