I just don’t understand the answer. Seems to be conflating “energy cost” and “financial cost” under the same umbrella. I don’t think Prometheus is disputing the energy costs of “the physics required to assemble a molecule”.

Current processes use heat+pressure, which are pretty wasteful, and often rely on burning fossil fuels in the 1st place, which will mechanically increase the financial cost”

What I understand from Prometheus is that they have a different way to “assemble molecules”, which relies on “electrocatalysts” instead of “catalysts requiring high temperature and pressure”. On the face of it, I can totally see how such a catalyst would decrease the “financial cost” without necessarily impacting the “energy cost”. It’s simply using a cheaper energy than the current processes.

The twitter answer rings similar to someone who would say “There is no shortcuts around the physics of producing light” to justify why LED lightbulbs would never make it. Most of the energy of incandescent bulbs is just heat, and there are physical process that produce light without all that heat. I don’t see any reasons why the extra heat would be needed to produce fuels

Yes, the whole thing is a bit weird and so I honestly don't know which side is credible.

You can't get around the basic energy requirements, but don't we come up with easier synthesis methods all the time?