There is no plan which will "work" everywhere all the time. Every bit of time and money spent on one project is time and money not spent elsewhere. So it's a bit inefficient. The energy issue is a more valid "war" than Iraq when it comes to protecting American interests. Efficiency will come with experience, scale and technology.

How efficient is it to be fighting a war in the Middle East in an attempt to solve that same energy problem?

So some things won't work as advertised and some things will become obsolete. How much attrition is there on the hardware sent to Iraq? How much is wasted, and how much doesn't perform as advertised? Quite a bit. Plans like Pickens should be given a higher priority than looking for Iraq's WMDs, nukes, democracy, stability, winning, or now "success".

The reality is that the US would be better off doing what can be done and starting to do it right now rather than wait for the magic bullet. Solve 5% or 10% or 20% of the problem, learn from ramping up those technologies and position ourselves for solving the remainder.

For the good of our country.

Arf