While appearing comfortable with the future entry of the private sector in what has been the exclusive domain of the Indian nuclear establishment, Chidambaram is inflexible about two requirements.

In principle, there would not be much difference between government-run and privately-run nuclear plants on two critical issues: Safety and on controls over the plutonium produced.

``On safety, a privately-owned plant would be under the same safety regulatory requirements set by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB). They would have to comply with the AERB safety guidelines as applied to any other nuclear plant'', Chidambaram said.

``Secondly, we will have to exercise a control over sensitive material. If plutonium is produced, then whther it will be handed over to the Government, this would have to beworked out'', Chidambaram told journalists here last week.

With the Government conducting strategic dialogues with the United States and France, two key players in the global nuclear power scenario, the AEC chairman's statements reflecting an openness to private sector entry into this hitherto closed area acquires significance. Government has earlier stated that it was not averse to the idea of foreign-owned nuclear power plants, though a number of hurdles would have to be cleared.

Both the American and French nuclear industry have in the past, evinced interest in setting up nuclear power plants in India, though as the situation stands they are compelled by their national commitments to the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) not to sell nuclear equipment countries like India which are not signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

While Chidambaram has often spoken of his aim of generating 20,000 MW of nuclear power by the year 2020, the financial resources required would be mind-boggling.

At a firstglance, nuclear energy is not cheap. But considering the environmental costs accruing from carbon dioxide spewing coal-based plants and the depletion of non-renewable fossil fuels, gives the nuclear option an edge, even if the costs of decommissioning the plants are worked in.With Western markets saturated, the future growth of the nuclear power industry is expected to be in Asia. China, India and Korea are being eyed by the western nuclear power companies, who, in the search for markets, would push their governments to find a way around their restrictive NPT regimes.According to environment experts, a single 1000 MW coal plant emits close to six million tonnes of carbon dioxide annually, an alarming figure when concerns about global warming are rising. It would also produce an average 44,000 tonnes of sulphur oxide and 22,000 tonnes of nitrous oxides that are dispersed into the atmosphere, apart from the additional problem of about 320,000 tonnes of fly ash containing 400 tonnes of heavy metals. While anuclear plant would not release noxious fumes, there would be the problem of radioactive spent fuel and other wastes, which would have to be reprocessed. On the face of it ``coal-based thermal plants will always be cheaper than nuclear plants. But if the environmental costs and transportation costs for coal are added up, nuclear is the better option'', Chidamabaram adds.

``It is not every country that has the (nuclear) capability. We have laid a wide infrastructure base for nuclear technology. We are now giving the country an option (on choosing nuclear power)'', he says.