I was just pointing out that fission is currently available, but is a bad choice because of the costs involved.

Likewise with fusion, sure it could work, but would it work at a cost less than that of fossil hydrocarbons? (note oil in this situation is really a pointless point of debate, it is a very small part of our world's energy portfolio, and is eaisly switched out for other options once it become cost ineffective).

As of this date, major break throughs in fusion technology have not been forth comming, and fusion enthusiasts have to wait in line with everyone else at the Hadron Supercolider to determine if sustained fusion is possible.

a diverse portfolio allows for flexibility, and allows us the opportunity to develop technologies to make things like fusion or efficient solar a possibility.

We will stop using oil when it becomes ineffecient. Not before, (baring ecological catastrophy due to greenhouse gas emmissions) it is a question of costs.

Oil is still considered cheaper than fission with regard to environmental costs. It's dollar costs as scorpio points out are large as well, but really it is the liability costs from frivolous law suits and ignorant outcry that are the real factors there, state sponsorship, regulation, and control make such concerns far less problematic and solve the problem of energy production quickly and easily.

For now, oil is cheap, and realtively easy, there is no hard evidence that we are running out or even peaking since we really don't know what truly exists in reserves. When we do peak, it should be noted that the decline of oil production will be met with a rise in the cost of use, which will make other options more viable, and thusly more probable to replace oil.

Fusion is a great idea, but it's not a question of throwing money or minds at it. Putting some cowboy on the moon to hit golf balls around is realativly easy in comparison to creating viable sustainable fusion. It's certainly possible, but it's likely more practicle to use the other established answers to the energy concern while we are developing fusion.

Thanks for making my point.

The "article" your referncing makes no allotment for new discoveries nor the effects of price on demand.

It sets a specific usage and assumes that if usage continues in an exact continuance.

That's simply not the way energy economics really works. I can't vouce for this "expert's" credentials, but I'm willing to make a bet they are placing numbers in their equations where X's should be.

When you do that, one's own prejudices and assumptions come into play, and sure enough you get the result you expect everytime.

All that being said, since the X is an X and not a number, (the reserves in the Arabian oil Fields for example are so closely guarded a state secret that I doubt any number given is anything other than a whole cloth wild guess by any outside analyst) putting your wild guess in is accurate as your own honesty. If you say, 100 years or 1 year, I can all but guarantee that your being right is purely coincidental. If you say 1 year to 100 years, you are much more likely right, but that is a completely useless number.

In the end, without hard data all you can operate on is the real world application of use vs. the use of alternatives.

Which is admitadly not a very forward indicator, but it does serve it's purpose in giving you an accurate assessment of the current state of our hydrocarbon age society.

Given the relative uselessness of the Manned Space Program in the 50's on through today, the moon landing is likely not the best example to use.

We could likely meet our energy needs right now, if we switched to nuclear, but there are costs involved, just as there are costs involved in the use of solar, wind etc.

The use of oil is a convenience, but as it's cost rises, alternatives become more attractive, and oil becomes less so.

As the risks of global warming increse, the risks of nuclear energy lower in relation.

Energy economics is only simple if you look in one direction at a single point, and declare it fixed. The reality of energy economics is far more complex and far more variable to the capricies of future ingenuity.