The government has enlisted the aid of a brand consultant to give the image of nuclear power in South Africa a major makeover.
It is looking to identify so-called ”nuclear ambassadors” to endorse nuclear power stations in communities and the business world.
But opponents fear that the move may be an attempt to short-circuit public consultation as the government presses ahead with its programme to build a dozen more conventional plants and at least twice that number of pebble-bed reactors.
The makeover initiative is being led by the Department of Public Enterprises, working with the Department of Minerals and Energy and Eskom.
They have hired the services of brand consultants Freedthinkers, which calls itself a ”research and development think tank”.
Freedthinkers has begun conducting interviews with a range of people in organisations including the business sector, large corporations and NGOs.
According to the guide that Freedthinkers provides for its interviewers, the objective of the project is to ”unearth the perceptions, misperceptions, fears and expectations surrounding nuclear power and related issues”.
It also aims to ”explore the prompts that will help thought leaders and communities adopt more informed and balanced opinions”, and ”reveal the preferred touch points for different stakeholders”.
Interviewees are told their input will shape a communications strategy ”that is intended to help South Africans be clear and informed about all the relevant aspects of the nuclear programme in a truthful, balanced and fair manner”.
Most of the questions deal with the interviewee’s perceptions and knowledge of nuclear power, and one probes the sources of that knowledge.
At the end, the interviewee is asked: ”If you had to choose a South African to spread the message, endorse or be an ambassador for building nuclear power stations to your business, industry, or community, who would it be and why?
”Would you be willing to be chosen as a nuclear ambassador?”
Founder and owner of Freedthinkers Michael Freedman wrote in a pro-nuclear magazine article earlier this year that the misperceptions surrounding nuclear power ”could be the most catastrophic mistake humanity will make”.
”Nuclear power needs an extreme makeover,” he wrote.
”The myths need to be busted, blind emotion must be enlightened by knowledge and the costs of delay must be made manifest …
”The challenge is to instil a sense of urgency by creating a national and global debate around the issues.
”It will take the most skilled in the communications industry plus a few billion dollars in the war chest.”
Last month nuclear advocate Geraldine Bennett, formerly linked to the pebble-bed project, told a seminar in Gauteng that the nuclear industry has to overcome its ”cloak and dagger” legacy, and that there is a need for ”streamlining a message democratically”.
Coordinator of the anti-nuclear Pelindaba Working Group Dominique Gilbert, one of those approached by Freedthinkers, said she believes the initiative is more sinister than just a branding exercise.
It should be seen in the light of Cabinet’s approval last month of a nuclear master plan, after what the Department of Minerals and Energy claimed were predominantly pro-nuclear submissions — which activists noted were not made public.
She believes the Freedthinkers project is an effort, using taxpayers’ funds, to create a perception of acceptability for the nuclear programme as a means of bypassing the public participation processes.
It is also an attempt to probe information networks among anti-nuclear organisations, she said.
Spokesperson for the Coalition against Nuclear Energy Muna Lakhani said the initiative is very much in line with past attempts by the nuclear industry both in South Africa and elsewhere in the world to ”manage” anti-nuclear activism”.
”My sense is that they wish to get to the heart of our campaign and then work out a spin strategy that will counter that,” he said.
”So it would be most honest to view the survey with total cynicism.”
Opponents of nuclear power say it is unsafe, hugely expensive, provides poor returns on the energy used to establish plants, and that the money sunk into new plants could better be used on developing renewable energy sources and greater energy efficiency.
They also point to the fact that the spent fuel from plants retains deadly radiation levels for tens of thousands of years.
Proponents say nuclear offers economically competitive, reliable and clean technology in a world increasingly concerned with the effects of global warming. — Sapa