 Solution

An economic threshold requires all unit costs to have an explicit mass basis. Let $p_U$ be the concentrate price per kilogram of uranium, and let $C_{\mathrm{net}}$ denote the annual incremental fabrication-and-disposal cost of the closed cycle relative to the open cycle. The break-even annual cash balance iswhere $M_{\mathrm{rep}}$ is the charged nuclear fuel reprocessing throughput in kilograms of initial heavy metal. Use $M_{\mathrm{rep}}=35393.9394$: the stated $33$ tonnes is the remaining uranium inventory, not the whole initial heavy-metal throughput. ThusIf the quoted combined $400$ dollars per kilogram is a net additional charge on that same reprocessed-HM basis, $C_{\mathrm{net}}=400M_{\mathrm{rep}}$, giving 1,196.77 dollars per kg U. Under this explicit convention, the saving in purchased separative work is small and the resource saving must pay nearly all the additional nuclear fuel reprocessing cost.

The wording does not identify the mass basis or counterfactual sign of the combined recycled-fuel and spent-fuel-disposal term. If instead $400$ dollars is a net charge per kilogram of the $4469.4375$ kg recycled product, the same balance gives 897.56 dollars per kg U. If it denotes a net avoided charge of $400$ dollars per kilogram of discharged HM, the threshold is 511.87 dollars per kg U. These are alternative accounting conventions, not three simultaneous economic thresholds; the general balance makes the ambiguity visible.

All prices here are per uranium mass, not per gross concentrate mass. This simplified comparison assigns no plutonium credit, financing, conversion-cost difference or change in repository liability, and takes the quoted charges as incremental. A closed fuel cycle can save natural uranium without being the cheaper option: at a price below the threshold under the chosen cost convention, the additional charges exceed the resource credit. No contemporary uranium-market price is needed for that conclusion.