Chernobyl was caused by human error and irresponsibility. We have to assume that the design and operation of all reactors, present and future, will involve these factors. Everything humans do does.

That's why SMRs like NuScale Power's aim to reduce the number of staff and replace it with automation and passive safety features.

Which again is written by humans. Boeing anyone? All you can do is reducing the risk not eliminate it. Chernobyl was clearly on the high risk side of things. Doesn't mean new reactor types are zero risk so.

Nothing is zero risk. It's just facts of life that we have to deal with. We can do risk mitigation so that the risks are minimized as much as possible. There is also the risk of smog deaths, heavy metal posioning and climate realted disasters if we continue to burn coal. Would you rather have the risk one nuclear accident per 3704 cumulative reactor-years of commercial nuclear power operation [1] or the guaranteed risk of 800,000 premature deaths per year globally [2] attributed to normal coal power operation?

1. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2016.1...

2. https://endcoal.org/health/

Risk implies uncertainty. A "guaranteed risk" is not a risk. And of course I prefer a small decrease in life expectancy to the risk of rendering millions of people homeless.

The equation does change when taking climate change in account. But that does not mean renewables are preferred to nuclear merely for "political reasons". Being better than coal does not remotely make it acceptable.