Hacker News Reader

I can't help thinking we'd be better off with lots of smaller projects. At least then the possibility for mega-overruns is limited. And I'm not sure the economies of scale argument holds water when the supposed savings almost always seem to miraculously evaporate to be replaced by cost overruns and extra profits for the contractors.

View on HN

Arguably, lots of smaller projects means lots more contractors, duplicated work and parts -- every location needs a buffer zone, fencing, security, printer cartridges, and coffee, to name a few mundane costs

I also wonder how that would affect the chances of an accident - instead of inspecting one cooling system, you're checking 20, and with 19 more parts to potentially fail

> I also wonder how that would affect the chances of an accident - instead of inspecting one cooling system, you're checking 20, and with 19 more parts to potentially fail

But each of those failures would be pretty unspectacular with little to no impact on the environment or the stability of the power grid. Which in turn allows you to use lower cost (automated) failure detection systems.

Small modular reactor are already researched https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor

Reply on news.ycombinator.com