# Economy-sized Nuclear Plants

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economy-sized-nuclear-plants/506394>\
**Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\
**Created:** [August 14, 2009, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economy-sized-nuclear-plants/506394 "2009-08-14T12:39:39Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\
**Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economy-sized-nuclear-plants/506394/41 "2009-08-25T01:49:31Z")

</div>

> [@Irishman](#):
>
> That would still be “economical sized reactors”, or perhaps “economical-sized reactors”, not “economically sized reactors”.
> 
> Are the reactors economical in size, or is the sizing process economical (regardless of how big your reactor)? That is the distinction that **John W. Kennedy** proposes.

I am not arguing semantics or grammar or whatever.

I am pointing out two other things that folks may be mistaken about.

People often equate bigger with being cheaper per unit cost. Or buying in bulk in other words.

Bigger is also often more efficient.

Neither of these things are neccessarily true or important when it comes to nuclear reactors and their special considerations.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\
**Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economy-sized-nuclear-plants/506394/42 "2009-08-25T07:40:44Z")

</div>

> [@Irishman](#):
>
> That would still be “economical sized reactors”, or perhaps “economical-sized reactors”, not “economically sized reactors”.
> 
> Are the reactors economical in size, or is the sizing process economical (regardless of how big your reactor)? That is the distinction that **John W. Kennedy** proposes.

I have trouble with “economical sized”, because, without a connector, “economical” is functioning as an adverb describing the adjective sized. And, in proper English economical doesn’t function that way. Also, being sized in an economical manner is exactly where the concept of “economy size” comes from, based on the (apparently erroneous) assumption that packaging items in bulk is more economical.

Still, I have to concede that “economically sized” seems just as incorrect as “economical sized.” It seems to me that the typical usage for such a construction is _noun_-sized, such as “fun-size[d]”, “bite-size[d]”, or “king-size[d]”. So wouldn’t the correct term be “economy-size[d]”?

Plus. unlike the others, I’ve had the advantage of actually seeing that version used. On actual advertising.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\
**Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economy-sized-nuclear-plants/506394/43 "2009-08-25T18:05:45Z")

</div>

**billfish678** said:

> [@](#):
>
> I am not arguing semantics or grammar or whatever.
> 
> I am pointing out two other things that folks may be mistaken about.

Fair enough, but you quoted a comment from **John W. Kennedy** that was part of a discussion on semantics and grammar, so I thought that was what you were commenting on.

**BigT** said:

> [@](#):
>
> Still, I have to concede that “economically sized” seems just as incorrect as “economical sized.” It seems to me that the typical usage for such a construction is noun-sized, such as “fun-size[d]”, “bite-size[d]”, or “king-size[d]”. So wouldn’t the correct term be “economy-size[d]”?

I just checked google and found  
[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/economy-size](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/economy-size)

> [@](#):
>
> **e⋅con⋅o⋅my-size**   /ɪˈkɒnəmiˌsaɪz/ [i- **kon** -_uh_-mee-sahyz] Show IPA  
> –adjective
> 
> 1. larger in size and costing less per unit of measurement than a smaller size: _an economy-size box of soap flakes._
> 2. smaller in size and costing less: _economy-size cars_.

So it turns out the phrase can mean both larger and smaller sized, depending upon context. Guess Cecil was right after all.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\
**Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economy-sized-nuclear-plants/506394/44 "2009-08-25T19:52:02Z")

</div>

> [@Irishman](#):
>
> **billfish678** said:  
> Fair enough, but you quoted a comment from **John W. Kennedy** that was part of a discussion on semantics and grammar, so I thought that was what you were commenting on.

Fair enough on the fair enough then 🙂

I guess we all actually CAN get along once in a great while !

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economy-sized-nuclear-plants/506394.md?page=2)