Nothing is 100.0% safe - but as far as I can find nuclear comes incredibly close[0] even when including Chernobyl and Fukushima.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Texas_power_crisis
The grid came within minutes of overloading and shutting down completely, which would have required a slow and costly black start.
How about https://www.ferc.gov/media/winter-storm-elliott-report-inqui... ?
This isn't just counting immediate deaths - else it'd just be ~30 for Chernobyl and ~0 for Fukushima.
In fact, Fukushima's death count seems to primarily be down to that "people had died indirectly as a result of the physical and mental stress of evacuation" - which I feel should at least partially be put on the tsunami that killed 20000.
Even solar still requires various minerals the extraction and processing of which has environmental impact - like tailing ponds of toxic substances that frequently leak, particularly from earthquakes and extreme weather.
But to be clear, the human and environmental impact of solar, wind, nuclear and hydro pales in comparison to that of fossil fuels.
You said "Suppose you have a devastating earthquake that wrecks renewable power sources in an area" - hydropower is considered renewable. I also did address a similar risk of solar (barely anything compared to fossil fuels, but same applies to nuclear).
That doesn’t mean there is no risk. It’s still ok to be scared of nuclear power for new unknown reasons. But let’s not pretend that designs aren’t wildly better now.
Nuclear is not safe. Every time proponents say "new designs are safe" eventually a new disaster proves this lie. Then the nuclear proponents say "oh well that was an old design, new designs are safe!"
Nuclear is too expensive. Renewables even with storage are way cheaper! We can way over build renewables. We can distribute them, because "bad weather" is regional. All for much cheaper than nuclear.
Stop pushing this out-dated, unsafe and expensive technology. Its time has passed.