Is it :Possible to Live Without Fossil Fuels?

 Yes, of course. However, it is feasible to live without fossil fuels while still having a plentiful energy supply. We spend most of our time talking regarding climate change and most of that time talking about science. At the same time, vested interests exploit the science's complexity to mislead people about the solutions' simplicity.

The first argument I usually want to emphasise is that efficiency, wind, and utility-scale solar are so less expensive than fossil or nuclear generating that a pure economic strategy would exclude fossil fuels entirely. This is currently taking place in underdeveloped countries worldwide, where solar panels may supply services for a fraction of the expense of constructing a new grid if one does not already exist.
This issue, however, can lead in two different directions—first, storage; second, non-fossil, non-wind, and non-solar alternatives.
Today, storage is taking place. Although opponents of clean energy have spent a lot of time and money spreading the myth that you have to combine renewable and fossil resources, this is not the case. The need for storage arises when nearly 80% of our electricity comes from wind and solar, according to an insightful observation from the CEO of Xcel, one of the nation's largest utilities. CEO: To meet its carbon-free targets, Xcel will almost certainly need gas or nuclear electricity. He disagrees with me when he argues it needs natural gas or nuclear electricity. Nuclear power is non-dispatchable, making it unsuitable for filling the 20% gap when we have mostly wind and solar. Natural gas will almost certainly have filled that 20% gap by the time we get there. We already obtain over 34% of our electricity from natural gas, so we won't need to build any additional natural gas plants to get there. However, storage technologies are affordable enough to replace natural gas when we reach the 20% total load point.

Storage is being developed today for two main reasons: businesses and industries that can't withstand tiny grid fluctuations produced by other customers flicking switches on and off all day, and companies and industries that can't handle service interruptions in the event of a power outage. Because of these markets, storage costs have fallen, and some solar companies can now afford to bundle their panels with battery storage. This isn't to close that 20% gap; instead, it's to get more excellent economic value in the existing market, paying more for power during daily air conditioning peak demand. Because we air condition a lot of heat from thermal mass like concrete and asphalt that got hot under the sun, the air conditioning load lasts longer than the sunshine.

One thing to keep in mind about the electrical grid is that daily demand swings are far more significant than in a future grid powered primarily by wind and solar. There could be local concerns, but we're still far from finding out what they are because we haven't arrived yet.
And batteries aren't the sole option for storing data. At least three or four significant technologies are in the running, including pumped hydro storage, compressed air, hydrogen conversion (no longer in the running as a vehicle fuel, but definitely in the running for primary electricity storage because it can be stored and used in existing natural gas facilities), and a variety of other gravity-based technologies.
I believe the response you were seeking had something to do with the other renewables. Hydropower, biomass, Semiconductor Industry geothermal, and a slew of other technologies (wave energy, direct conversion of heat to electricity via physical materials that work that way, and, of course, all the alleged new nuclear technologies - including modular reactors, which are still being discussed despite their inability to compete economically with wind and solar) are frequently mentioned as options. On the other hand, none of them has the potential for expansion and competition with wind and solar. I won't rule out the possibility that things may change. Still, today we live in a world with plenty of wind and solar energy and plenty of opportunities to strengthen the global economy by investing in these technologies, all of which will cut electricity costs.

Finally, electricity and renewables have the potential to replace natural gas and petroleum in non-electric energy technologies, which is a less well-known topic. Electricity has already beaten gasoline in the economic struggle for transportation. It also works for most diesel fuel applications and numerous industrial coal, natural gas, and petroleum applications. Electric air-to-air heat pumps have just surpassed natural gas furnaces, which is a significant area that receives little attention. Persons who heat with propane or heating oil are wasting money and should convert as quickly as feasible; however, people who heat with natural gas should convert when their old furnaces need to be replaced.
We've spent a lot of time & effort looking at biofuels for decades. I believe that biofuels have lost the economic race to power in most locations to avoid repeating myself. They're still competing for jet fuel and some off-road vehicle applications. And it's crucial to remember that biofuels aren't as plentiful as wind and solar power. Due to the United States' importance in supplying the rest of the world with wheat and soybeans, passing a required biofuel component for ethanol and biodiesel tripled the world price of grain. This has levelled out, but it's yet another fumbling attempt to shower rewards on farmers without considering the consequences, and farming isn't doing much better. We've just lost most of our conservation reserve areas, and we'll have to pay roughly twice as much for all grains to avoid using around 12% more fossil fuels for transportation.
I believe we will want to utilise biofuels as chemical feedstocks in the plastics industry (yes, plastic can be made from renewable materials). And we need to focus on all of this by pushing forward much more quickly with the core task of building wind and utility-scale solar and boosting efficiency initiatives as far as is feasible, which is roughly double today's $8 billion spending for starters. Rooftop solar will play a part, but it functions in a different economic environment than wind, utility-scale solar, or efficiency, and in many regions, it still requires subsidies.
As a result, the answer is yes. And it's backed up by our capacity to get to around 1850 without much in the way of fossil fuels, but that encourages the fossil fuel industry to suggest that sustainable energy necessitates sacrifice. The future is full of inexpensive, renewable energy, and while we don't know how it will look, we know that we can go from here to there without spending any more money than we do now on fossil fuels.