= Solution
\b[Resource savings do not by themselves establish a financial saving.] The one-recycle case avoids purchasing $34374.04$ kg U in natural feed and $1592.76$ kg-SWU per year. Those are the benefits to compare with the incremental costs, not the whole value of the recovered <uranium> or the gross avoided fresh-product separative work.
Let $p_U$ be the concentrate price per kilogram of <uranium>, $p_S$ the price per kg-SWU, and $C_{\rm add}$ the annual net extra cost of recovery, recycle-specific conversion and fabrication, waste management and financing, relative to the once-through alternative. Recycling is cheaper under this simplified boundary only if
$$
\boxed{C_{\rm add}<34374.04\,p_U+1592.76\,p_S}.
$$
Equivalently, if $p_S$ and $C_{\rm add}$ were supplied, the break-even <uranium> price would be
$$
p_U^*=\frac{C_{\rm add}-1592.76p_S}{34374.04}.
$$
An avoided spent-fuel-disposal charge belongs as a credit in $C_{\rm add}$; a new <radioactive waste conditioning> or disposal liability belongs as a cost. They must not both be assigned the same sign simply because each concerns waste.
The natural-uranium saving is appreciable, but the fractional separative-work saving is small. Recovery losses and the <uranium-236> compensation limit the value of recycling. Additional radiological handling, separate fabrication campaigns, secondary waste streams, capital tied up during storage and recovery, and uncertain future disposal costs can matter. Conversely, a higher natural-uranium price, a lower incremental recovery cost or an independently justified disposal credit can favour reuse. The calculation gives a conditional comparison, \b[not a uniquely determined economic verdict or market-price threshold], because no costs are supplied. <plutonium> utilisation is a different option and has not been silently credited to this uranium-only recycle.
Back to article page
