This is encouraging, but I couldn't find the word 'cost' anywhere in the article. Any technology that claims to replace an existing commodity like plastic needs to pass what Vinod Khosla calls the 'Chindia test': if it's not cheap enough to be commercially viable in China and India, it's not going to be successful.
Nor does it mention the actual energy required to make the stuff. It very well may require more fossil fuels in energy to make it than using the same oil directly in plastic.
That can't be true, there are people(like me) who are willing to buy this even if its 10-20 times the price of plastic. For one it would be bio-degradable, and you wouldn't worry as much keeping this stuff around children because this is natural material.
Sure there are extremely poor people who might not be able to afford the extra money, but anybody concerned with the environment and their health would have sufficient reason to use this material. Another argument is that since plastic is so cheap, even if this liquid wood is many times the price of plastic it can still be affordable.
Maybe it wasn't clear, but /more cost effective than plastic/ - which is all that's required.
Regardless, if this material is at all viable, like the other comment says the cost will go down anyway as production is further refined and volume scales up.
The ideal example of price to volume in manufacturing product is probably portland cement, it's produced in astronomical quantities and is literally cheaper than dirt.
I misunderstood your comment. Original comment deleted! I agree that it needs to be cheaper than plastic (and this thing might be). All I'm saying is that any articles talking about alternatives should attempt to discuss economics of production as well.
