War or CO2 Neutral electricity?

A recent estimate for the total cost of the Iraq war to America is $2.4TRILLION, which to be honest is a pretty hefty sum of money for a failed war. Now I admit Saddam Hussein was a dick of immense proportions, but the state of affairs as they stand are worse than when he was alive, he had no WMDs and the oil the American government wanted has gone significantly up in price.

So instead of going to war, what could the USA have done with $2.4trillion? (Inspired by cdk007) Well I was inspired by the my local university which is spending £8million on a CO2 neutral power plant running on woodchips, which it gasifies.
So converting the $2.4trillion into GBP we get £1.188trillion. At £8million a power plant, that is 148,500 power plants.
Each of these power plants produces 1.4MW of electricity and 2MW of heat (which can be used to heat local buildings).
So 48,500 power plants could produce 1.82trillion kWh of electricity a year, and 2.6trillion kWh of heat each year.
Even if the heat was wasted, instead of being pumped into buildings, the electricity produced is 11.5% of the World's 15.81 trillion kWh yearly usage, (Based on the CIA world factbook.) or 47.7% of USA's 3.816 trillion kWh yearly usage.

Now USA attacked Iraq for oil, and oil is only used for 38% of the world wide power generation (I don't know the exact statistics for the USA), assuming the USA is approximately the same, not only could they stop using oil for electricity, they could also use the gasified wood not used for electricity generation and condense it into liquid fuel for transport, using the Fischer-Tropsch process.

So in conclusion, If the USA wanted to spend its money wisely, instead of wasting it failing to get oil from Iraq, it could have significantly reduced its need for the oil in the first place. Also it could sell these CO2 neutral power plants to power companies, or keep them and use them for income. Where as they definitely can't sell the Iraq war to anyone, the money is wasted.