Even if the oil production could be enough for both use? I believe that we have a lot of plastic waste worldwide. And if this process could be so good and product a lot in less time, less money etc, maybe we could re-enter this final product in both ways: (A) fuel for machines AND (b) the plastic industry. Or economically speaking, even in this case scenario it will be better following ONLY A or B?

Do you have some link to share with us about this process made in Brazil and Venezuela? I't would be interesting to learn more about it.

You have an interesting point. If (and only if) the process of making oil from plastic were (1) LESS EXPENSIVE than recycle used plastic into new plastic for the industry AND (2) the oil produced could be used into the plastic industry in a way it could be at least the same cost in comparison with the petroleum-to-plastic traditional industry way, it will be better to just transform all the world plastic waste into oil, and then redirect its final product to (A) fuel for machines and (B) the plastic industry. But I don't have any data and this is only a speculation.

If this technology is so good like they said, and many companies (or better: governments) adopt such ways of transforming plastic into fuel, we can organize all the World plastic waste in to TWO recycle ways: produce FUEL and recycle PLASTIC. We don't need to transform all the plastic waste into fuel. The industry still needs plastic in their products so with a better equilibrium we can reduce the petroleum extraction (a.k.a.: dependency), try to utilize all the annual plastic waste, and (better) we can contribute with the environment with less pollution, in the air and in the ground (I think).

This remind me of the recent Turing Test competition...

I think in two ways worst than an alien disease, that can be a huge problem if in wrong hands. The FIRST CASE SCENARIO is about miscalculation: capturing near Earth Asteroid is a complex challenge. One thing wrong and you could bombard Earth and cause serious problems (and billions of victims). The SECOND CASE SCENARIO is hypothetical: what about finding a lot of tons of one or more of the 8 most expensive elements in the periodic table: Au, Ag, Pt, Pd, Ir, Rh, Os and Ru (or the worst case scenario: only Au and Pt) in the captured asteroids. And what if the company wants to "integrate" its achievement in the Earth economy? :) I know that, if used with wisdom this entrepreneurship can help humanity take a long leap in good, technology and expansion (and establishment) to other orbs in our Solar System, but things can go wrong (or intentionally wrong) and we need some guarantee.

If this technology is so good like they said, and many companies (or better: governments) adopt such ways of transforming plastic into fuel, we can organize all the World plastic waste in to TWO recycle ways: produce FUEL and recycle PLASTIC. We don't need to transform all the plastic waste into fuel. The industry still needs plastic in their products so with a better equilibrium we can reduce the petroleum extraction (a.k.a.: dependency), try to utilize all the annual plastic waste, and (better) we can contribute with the environment with less pollution, in the air and in the ground (I think).

I think this can be a huge problem if in wrong hands. The FIRST CASE SCENARIO is about miscalculation: capturing near Earth Asteroid is a complex challenge. One thing wrong and you could bombard Earth and cause serious problems (and billions of victims). The SECOND CASE SCENARIO is hypothetical: what about finding a lot of tons of one or more of the 8 most expensive elements in the periodic table: Au, Ag, Pt, Pd, Ir, Rh, Os and Ru (or the worst case scenario: only Au and Pt) in the captured asteroids. And what if the company wants to "integrate" its achievement in the Earth economy? :) I know that, if used with wisdom this entrepreneurship can help humanity take a long leap in good, technology and expansion (and establishment) to other orbs in our Solar System, but things can go wrong (or intentionally wrong) and we need some guarantee.

I think that the near Earth asteroid capture "entrepreneurship" can be a viable way of expanding the mineral supply market (and, obviously, the space marketing and humanity expansion to another orbs), but one calculation wrong and we can be doomed. This is an ultra-risk market (in a environmental way). And what about economy? Think about in this hypothetical scenario: a company finds many asteroids with one (or more) of the 8 most expensive elements in your periodic table: Au, Ag, Pt, Pd, Ir, Rh, Os and Ru (or think about in the worst case scenario were only too are found - Au and Pt - pure in tons of tons of quantity). What you think will be happen to our economy if all this new resources were "integrated" in the market? :)

OK! But I think we don't want to see another meaningless fight. Competition "means" a health dispute in the market based on better products workable with an accepted common standard. Rivalry "means" a dog fight in the market with products with many incompatible standards were only one company can win, and all consumers lost.

We really need a great leap of investments in that research area, not only for Li* batteries, but for other commercially viable with better and longer life cycle (carbon based like grafene and other forma combined?). And it will be better if all this investments create a real product with long life spam and not another programmable obsolescence product in the market like (all) the others.