There do seem to be some contradictory statements about this, or perhaps some weasel phrases that can easily be read incorrectly. The bit about vague costs being made unimportant by long life is very suspicious.
Supposedly someone has bought some. Presumably the cost vs. life equation makes sense to them. Perhaps the company hopes that further research will let it make sense in other places.
Indeed it would be wonderful if this is all true and scalable up and down. But the published information was very short on facts.