More importantly is that only A or B will likely be the best use, not both. Comparative advantage.
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?
They have been doing this in South American countries for years. Venezuela and Brazil. And its more of a gasoline that comes out and not oil. The Oil companies most likely have been suppressing this info here for years as well.
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.
Now we're all going to die of an alien disease.
Doesn't NASA watch any sci-fi?
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?
MSDOS is not dead, it just smells that way. -- Henry Spencer