Technology and ideas do replace physics and chemistry when they improve efficiency. No comment, at the moment, on how that impacts the broader discussion.
Regarding the second half, I said I wasn't going to comment on the broader discussion.
Regarding the first, though, if we need to produce X horsepower for Y hours, then we can do it by using Z gas + Z' gas, or Z gas plus an idea for a more efficient engine. Ideas absolutely replace energy. They can't, so far as I can see, replace the last bit of energy, but we're nowhere near that.
That makes no sense. You can't just wish energy into existence with an idea. Efficiency gains aren't going to cut it with the energy consumption dynamics we have.
"You can't just wish energy into existence with an idea."
Yes, I said as much.
"Efficiency gains aren't going to cut it with the energy consumption dynamics we have."
Maybe not; that's a broader question. The point is that you can displace some need for energy with efficiency gains or alternatives. The more energy you're using, the more of a difference an idea can make, since ideas tend to mean proportional improvements in efficiency (though not necessarily large proportions).
Whether it's sufficient is a huge question that would require a lot more attention than I'm able to give this right now (which is why I've persisted in staying out of the mainline of the discussion here).
