Compare and contrast nuclear fission with nuclear fusion. Which process is most likely to be used to provide e?

How far in the future?  Ultimately, fusion is the better answer, because the light elements that are used to release energy via fusion (e.g., hydrogen and lithium) are far more abundant on Earth than the heavy elements that are needed for fusion (e.g., uranium), and fusion is more efficient at releasing energy and doesn't result in long-term dangerous waste products, although the radiation produced while fusion is occurring must still be shielded against.

Unfortunately, we are not yet at a technological level where we can harness fusion for power generation, so in the short term, of those two choices, fission is our only option.

*Edit*:  Chosen One actually has that backwards.  Fusion only happens "by itself" when a fairly large amount of external energy is input into the system; this is currently done via multiple lasers hitting a small target pellet.  The reason that it's still a viable energy source is that the energy released by fusion is considerably greater than the energy required to initiate it.  In contrast, once you have sufficiently refined fissionable materials, a fission reaction really does happen by itself when you bring the materials together.  The hard part becomes controlling the reaction to generate sufficient heat to run turbines and produce electricity without allowing the material to melt or explode.  However, the downsides to fission (the radioactive waste products, rarity of the materials, and difficulty and expense of refining them) are problems that don't exist for fusion.