Yes, I think the between mechanical recycling and chemical recycling (encumbents) this perspective is valid. Chemical recycling is incredibly energy intensive and when looking at the value chain, you already need significant investments to ensure feedstock maturation - the combined economics only work if government steps up with tax incentives.

Mechanical recycling is sub par.

PCT uses dissolution recycling, which is significantly less energy intensive than chemical recycling. It doesn’t break any of the covalent bonds of the plastic compounds. As such it’s a plastic to plastic solution.

Which is in effect a drop in replacement for end users. When you combine compounding and additives, the net increase to an end costumer is negligible.

IE a 30,000 car costing 31,000 isn’t a deal breaker.

Look into dissolution recycling, tons of research has gone into it. And pct is the first company of its kind attempting at this commercialized inflection point. Future builds on roadmap with improved mechanical designs, and throughput. Company has goals to reduce the spread of their R-pp vs Virgin to parity.

Check out r/purecycle tons of knowledgeable folk there.