7 ms·

> A ten times larger facility would cost more than ten times as much to run. This is an impossibility. You can just build ten smaller factories to scale up and

> A ten times larger facility would cost more than ten times as much to run. This is an impossibility. You can just build ten smaller factories to scale up and get at least a linear gain. No economics of scale just means that you can't get much better than linear, but in nearly all cases you at least get linear scaling.

Jensson 5y ago
It depends, if they share some facilities with other functions that pay parts of the bills then those parts wont scale up. Like lets say you rent out part of your capacity to a nearby lab that pay research lab money for it, that could cover most of their expenses for a small facility. I wouldn't be surprised if that is how they are running things right now.
cortesoft 5y ago
That is assuming that there is an elastic supply of needed materials. There may be bottlenecks in supplies that drive costs up.
beerandt 5y ago
Is it easier to keep a city of 10k or 100k disease free? If both get "contaminated", which is the bigger cost?
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  That's a false analogy. 10 separate factories in their example would be 10 separate cities each with 10k people, not 1 large city with 100k people.
  - beerandt 5y ago
    That's not how you reach economies of scale.
    - fighterpilot 5y ago
      We all know that. Their point was that you get linear scaling using that approach, which disproves the notion that you can't get linear scaling.
      - beerandt 5y ago
        Linear scaling of any project large enough to disrupt an industry (as is being suggested here) is a pipe dream. When you are trying to scale up something that big, you eventually get beyond economies of scale for the required infrastructure and feedstock, and as a result, increase overall demand, which raises prices. You only get near-linear scaling for a very short, initial "ramp-up" period. Beyond that, you start cornering markets, which makes prices spike, not decrease or even hold steady.
tablespoon 5y ago
>> A ten times larger facility would cost more than ten times as much to run. > This is an impossibility. You can just build ten smaller factories to scale up and get at least a linear gain. No it isn't. Your "solution" is a different thing. A collection of smaller facilities is not the same thing as a larger facility.
- willis936 5y ago
  You can have a large facility with 10,000 automated lines.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > You can have a large facility with 10,000 automated lines. Read the article. IIRC, it's talking about the limits of how large you can practically scale a clean room.
im3w1l 5y ago
Environmentalists often have a bias for small scale operation. They just really like the idea of everyone having their own bioreactor in their closet powered by their own rooftop solar panels. I think it may be simply an aesthetic preference that they then try to rationalize, facts be damned.

Jensson 5y ago

It depends, if they share some facilities with other functions that pay parts of the bills then those parts wont scale up. Like lets say you rent out part of your capacity to a nearby lab that pay research lab money for it, that could cover most of their expenses for a small facility. I wouldn't be surprised if that is how they are running things right now.

cortesoft 5y ago

That is assuming that there is an elastic supply of needed materials. There may be bottlenecks in supplies that drive costs up.

beerandt 5y ago

Is it easier to keep a city of 10k or 100k disease free? If both get "contaminated", which is the bigger cost?

fighterpilot 5y ago
That's a false analogy. 10 separate factories in their example would be 10 separate cities each with 10k people, not 1 large city with 100k people.
- beerandt 5y ago
  That's not how you reach economies of scale.
  - fighterpilot 5y ago
    We all know that. Their point was that you get linear scaling using that approach, which disproves the notion that you can't get linear scaling.
    - beerandt 5y ago
      Linear scaling of any project large enough to disrupt an industry (as is being suggested here) is a pipe dream. When you are trying to scale up something that big, you eventually get beyond economies of scale for the required infrastructure and feedstock, and as a result, increase overall demand, which raises prices. You only get near-linear scaling for a very short, initial "ramp-up" period. Beyond that, you start cornering markets, which makes prices spike, not decrease or even hold steady.

tablespoon 5y ago

>> A ten times larger facility would cost more than ten times as much to run. > This is an impossibility. You can just build ten smaller factories to scale up and get at least a linear gain. No it isn't. Your "solution" is a different thing. A collection of smaller facilities is not the same thing as a larger facility.

willis936 5y ago
You can have a large facility with 10,000 automated lines.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > You can have a large facility with 10,000 automated lines. Read the article. IIRC, it's talking about the limits of how large you can practically scale a clean room.

im3w1l 5y ago

Environmentalists often have a bias for small scale operation. They just really like the idea of everyone having their own bioreactor in their closet powered by their own rooftop solar panels. I think it may be simply an aesthetic preference that they then try to rationalize, facts be damned.