My my, is this what passes for evil science these days? No wonder we don't have any supervillains around. This stuff is all wrong. Firstly, in their previous paper (which is mentioned but not properly cited, sheesh!) the authors define their goal like this:
This is both an unconventional definition of "vaporisation" and an impractical one - if you really want somebody gone without a trace, a puff of common gases like CO2 and H2O would be rather more discreet than a ball of insanely hot plasma.
Secondly, the way they go about calculating the required energies is much too reductionist. Only the costs of breaking individual bonds between pairs of atoms are considered, ignoring various intermolecular interactions, the formation of different bonds while the material is being heated up, etc. I'm not a materials scientist, but I'm sure a bunch of energy sinks were overlooked there.
And finally they try to determine the vaporisation energy of all the organic matter in a body from the nutritional facts of dried pork. This information is completely irrelevant to the problem at hand - it tells us how much net energy would be released by digesting a body, and not at all how much much energy input would be required to vaporise it.
It's a disgrace. Forget about vaporising humans, I wouldn't trust these guys to know how to properly kick a puppy.