FESTER
Some might, but I don't rule out geoengineering.

I just don't think it's as economical as not burning coal in the first place when nuclear power comes in cheaper than coal by avoiding all coal's health costs, which double the real cost of coal. But then when you add geoengineering it looks like this:-

LET ALONE BUILDING A HUGE CO2 RECOVERY SYSTEM on TOP of:-
1. PAYING FOR COAL
2. PAYING FOR COAL's PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACT
3. PAYING FOR CO2 TO BE SCRUBBED OUT OF THERE WHEN WE SHOULD HAVE JUST AVOIDED BURNING COAL IN THE FIRST PLACE!

I mean, all that makes nuclear a complete bargain!

Youtuber "Answers with Joe" will be covering CO2 recovery and sequestration techniques this year, so I'll no doubt learn more as time goes on. Youtube "Real Engineering" said there are some possibly exciting technologies on the horizon.

But it all comes at a cost, and as coal kills 3 million people a year and is bad for us and ultimately is finite, why not just switch to nuclear now?

Max, if you don't mind, I'll forgo the lecture on how many people are being killed by coal.
3,000,000 a year?
Really?
You see Max this is why I and others like me refuse to accept all this climate HOO HAA.
It's just too ridiculous to believe.
And this is the theme throughout this whole campaign, scare mongering.
Oceans rising here but not there.
Water temp rising here but not there,
I'm sorry but all the modelling and theories in the world do not match the truth.
I have read some truths, they are those things that take the facts and put them in their proper place, and the truth will automatically follow.
CO2 is an essential gas, it is not the culprit it is touted to be, we need it, in fact the guy that started all this said himself that we need CO2, its a good gas and will help re-vegetate the globe if allowed.
There are just too many flaws in the GW, CC thing that is going on right now.
Too many questions, and too many people willing to accept whatever lies are put in front of them, instead of asking questions or doing their own research.

Max,

By the reckoning of climate change advocates, nuclear, or any other low emission technology, wouldn't change things for generations. Understanding the carbon cycle is of far greater importance. I favour ocean fertilisation as it has the potential to lock up CO2 as carbonates, generate cloud and rainfall (absorbing further CO2 if the rain falls on land), and feed marine life, so potentially delivering an economic benefit from increased fish catches. Further, it is relatively inexpensive and simple to implement. Would it work? Who knows, but every time someone wants to test the idea they are howled down by screaming environmentalists and the regulators get cold feet.

Cheers

the bottom line is you need to be extremely dumb or deceitful to think man can control the climate.

runner, good for you, I've said exactly the same thing before.
I hope more people keep driving this point home, and just maybe we can put reason and common sense back in front again and not this BS, and lies, we are being subjected to.

'Beam up me Scotty.'

Craig Kelly on the spot:

http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/good-morning-britain-host-piers-morgan-rips-into-prime-minister-scott-morrison-over-bushfire-response/news-story/ab36d90238a1a357dc155c500fdd4d9f