A visiting lecturer Tuesday argued for the implication of cost-attainable and more efficient energy conservation programs than are commonly the focus of energy debates.

In a speech titled “Energy Foolishness to Energy Independence,” Joseph Shuster, a Minnesota chemical engineer and author of “Beyond Fossil Fools,” said conservation with solar and wind alone cannot solve the energy crisis.

He said they are too expensive, intermittent and require too much land to be the sole provider of energy.

Instead, he said the use of nuclear energy would be “inevitable” as fossil fuels are depleted.

Of all alternative energy forms, nuclear energy is the safest industry and could provide the most opportunities for an urgent and efficient energy plan provided the technology available to the United States, Shuster said.

“It makes me sick when we see France doing all the work and Russia doing all the work, when the U.S. has the best technology,” Shuster said. “Worldwide, already a dozen countries have 40 percent of the energy come from nuclear.”

He added the transition from fossil fuels to more efficient energy forms needs to be done within 30 years. In 50 years, the oil barrels in reserves available around the world will be severely depleted.

“One pound of uranium converted to energy produces over 3 million times more energy than a pound of coal,” Shuster said. “How long can we overlook this magnificent resource?”

Shuster added Alaskan drilling, off-shore drilling and cap-and-trade programs are false solutions, which will not provide the major breakthrough required to solve the energy crisis in time.

Shuster also said an efficient nuclear plan would not break the bank.

A slight increase in costs of energy — which would still be under the costs of other countries — could offset costs of implementing more efficient energy programs.

“The costs of electricity are not a great burden — we pay about 20 percent less for transportation fuels than other countries,” Shuster said. “So it’s not a big deal. We can pay for it.”

Shuster’s lecture was followed by a debate on implementation of new plans and costs for creating energy-efficient programs. Some students agreed with Shuster’s points, while others had mixed feelings.

“Cost is so speculative, so you don’t know,” UW senior and nuclear engineering major Casey Anderson said. “But if we don’t do anything and rely on oil, the costs will be higher.”

However, Shuster’s argument that the more efficient plan of nuclear energy would provide a payback on investment resonated with some.

UW graduate student Evan Western said he was reassured by Shuster’s point of view.

He added he thought while construction technology for nuclear energy represents a serious start up cost, it would be a solid investment for the future.

Shuster concluded with an appeal to students: “We got to get on this and we have to get this solved. We must do it, otherwise all the young people, all the students, are going to be in a world of hurt.”