100% is actually trivial in the sense that we don't have surplus energy, so we can't turn off fossil fuels until we can turn them off.

What I should have said is this: economy is growing, and for now, it has to keep growing to even work. It's also dependent on fossil fuels and is using them up "just in time" - we don't have much in form of a buffer (or rather, the "buffer" is untapped sources, like ones exploited through fracking). As old sources get used up, new need to be tapped. We'll be able to stop tapping into new sources only when renewable/nuclear alternatives start growing faster than economy + drop in output of existing sources. Which might be somewhen in the future, but it's not now.

> The fact that you took it all the way to accusing me of trying to kill off most of the population is extremely rude.

I didn't accuse you of anything, you're projecting. I was only reminding everyone that the economy is not something you can just shut down and restart in a better form. Only gentle and incremental change is on the table.

> You are thinking in false extremes and stories, not numbers and graphs.

I can draw you the graphs if you like; the point is still that until we replace any given chunk of fossil fuel capacity, we have to keep that chunk running. Simple as that.

> willfully miss-frame the discussion. That is rather rude of you.

Sorry, that wasn't intentional. On the other hand, you've attacked me personally multiple times in your reply, which is that much ruder of you, and also against HN guidelines.