On qualifiers

It isn't just the Sask Party government which is having to backtrack on its pro-nuclear jingoism, as even the Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce is now trying to pretend that its constant stream of pro-reactor messages was always subject to concern about the cost involved:

The Chamber believes uranium development can be a major contributor to helping our province achieve its long-hoped-for potential. However, development in any business has to be economic, and that has always be the key qualifier of our support.

So let's take a look at the Chamber's helpful set of nuclear industry talking points masquerading as an FAQ (warning: PDF) to see how careful they've been to suggest that cost might be a problem:

Nuclear power is cost competitive with other forms of electricity generation. Nuclear energy is competitive with fossil fuel for electricity generation, despite relatively high capital costs and the need to internalize all waste disposal and decommissioning costs. If the social, health and environmental costs of fossil fuels are taken into account, nuclear is outstanding...(W)hen all of these issues are given careful consideration, nuclear energy still costs considerably less than renewable energy...Other drivers of this resurgent interest in nuclear energy include: the growing global demand for electricity; nuclear power’s cost competitiveness over the full life cycle...Nuclear power is cost competitive with other forms of electricity generation, except where there is direct access to low-cost fossil fuels.

Now, am I the only one seeing a lot of "nuclear = cheap!!!" to go with the Chamber's general "nuclear = magic rainbow sparkle ponies!!!" PR campaign, rather than any actual recognition that costs might offer some reason to qualify its cheerleading?

Update: In fairness, it's worth noting that the Chamber of Commerce's FAQ does mention the possibility of cost overruns - but not as a reason to avoid building the reactor which might give rise to them:

WOULD THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT NEED TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE COST OF BUILDING THE POWER PLANT?

Capital cost overruns and schedule delays are key risks in any new nuclear build project, and they would need to be carefully mitigated in the project development process. To date, the cumulative risks of a new nuclear build have been too large for the private sector to bear alone and governments have played some form of facilitation in the implementation of nuclear power projects in all jurisdictions.
...
WHAT TYPE OF COST OVERRUNS HAVE BEEN EXPERIENCED BY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT BUILDERS?

Historically, the requirement for significant upfront capital investment, the long development timelines, and the uncertainties of licensing and cost overruns have resulted in the need for cooperation between public and private sector players to ensure nuclear new build projects are successfully executed. The most important roles of government are to provide strong and effective regulation of the nuclear power industry to ensure public safety and to provide policy stability to allow efficient licensing, construction, and operation.

Saskatchewan could reduce licensing and first-of-a-kind risks by drawing on the recent experiences of other Canadian provinces that have developed nuclear generation capacity.

So contrary to McLellan's message now, the Chamber's position hasn't been "build nuclear only if we determine that it's cheap", but "build nuclear because we believe it's cheap - and if we're wrong, we can skip over regulatory steps and stick the public with any remaining bill".