This is a difficult question to answer empirically, because the empirical record on nuclear power around the world has been that costs have actually increased, not decreased, with more construction. In both France and the United States, the two countries with the most nuclear plants, the average cost of the nuclear plant increased as more and more plants were built. There's actually no empirical basis to assume or calculate the cost in terms of how many SMRs would have to be built in order to realize the economies of mass manufacturing and learning.
The second point is that to the extent that there is a limited amount of evidence for decreases in cost in very specific circumstances in certain countries where the same vendor, the same architect, is manufacturing and building multiple reactors, those cost declines have been very marginal. It's an increase of probably a few percentage points. If you were to assume something like 5% to 10%, extremely optimistic numbers, for learning rates, then what you find is that in order for the cost of SMRs on a per-kilowatt basis to match the cost of a large reactor on a per-kilowatt basis, you would have to build somewhere between several hundred and several thousand. In my opinion, 10 to 12 is completely impossible.
Remember that this is for the cost of SMRs on a per-kilowatt basis to come to equal that of large reactors, but large reactors themselves are not economical. If you're trying to compete with other, alternate sorts of energy, you would have to manufacture huge numbers of these SMRs, assume that everything goes really well, and have these very optimistic learning rates. I don't think that's very possible.