The chart "Energy required to produce fuels" on page 3 of the booklet shows that you need about less than .1 Btus of oil and less than .1 Btus of natural gas/coal for cellulosic ethanol, so .1 x 20.5 = 2.05. As most people know, cellulosic ethanol requires less fossil fuel than corn ethanol.

Ah, you changed the assumptions without listing them.  BTW, you should not be using a 6-page brochure intended to be printed on glossy paper as a reference.  There are no data tables or citations for sources.  The least-authoritative source you should be citing is a white paper... unless 6 pages of pretty pictures is the most complex thing you can handle.

Of course, you can't even get that right.  A 50% biomass-to-ethanol efficiency (omitting fossil inputs) would yield roughly 7.5-8 million BTU of product per ton of input (biomass at 15.8 million BTU/ton).  That is about what the advocates are reporting as their theoretical efficiency, and it comes to approximately 100 gallons of ethanol per ton.  You could only get 130 billion gallons out of 1.3 billion tons... if you can get all the processes working, which appears to be a ways off if the schedule slips and bankruptcies of cellulosic ethanol companies are any indication.

But let's assume it's feasible.  Should you?  Let's be generous to ethanol, and assume that engines tuned for it can achieve 80% of the volumetric fuel economy of gasoline engines.  The USA's 3.1 trillion vehicle-miles per year would require 175 billion gallons of ethanol, or about 13.6 quads.  That's an average of 17.7 MPGe, or about 4400 BTU/mile.  At a generous 30% average drivetrain efficiency this would deliver about 1320 BTU/mi (390 Wh/mi) to the wheels.  This takes 135% of your 1.3 billion tons of biomass; you have some 26% of your demand left unsatisfied, and nothing left over for other purposes.

Suppose instead that you chose electricity instead of ethanol as your medium.  20.5 quads of biomass is processed in the field to pyrolysis oil at 65% efficiency, yielding 13.3 quads of oil.  This is burned in combined-cycle gas-turbine powerplants at 60% thermal efficiency, producing 8.0 quads of electricity (2.34 trillion kWH).  Transferring this over the grid and to wheels at 60% efficiency delivers 1.40 trillion kWh at the wheels.  At 390 Wh/mi, this is sufficient to drive 3.6 trillion miles, requiring just 86% of your available biomass.  You have 14% (328 billion kWh) left over for other purposes.

The previous calculation assumes no improvements in vehicle efficiency over today's fleet.  If the average electric vehicle is as efficient as the GM Volt (250 Wh/mi at the wall), demand would only require 860 billion kWh at the generators, leaving about 540 billion kWh for other purposes.  The leftovers come to roughly 145% of all renewable electricity put on the US grid in 2008.

Of course, you can add wind power or nuclear to run your electric car if your biomass supply runs short; wind and uranium can't help you if you're burning ethanol no matter how much you have.

In brief, cellulosic ethanol makes no sense.  Ethanol is a way to keep transport running on liquid fuels so that the oil companies continue to own the market when the ethanol makers fail.  It has enormous opportunity costs and should be deep-sixed immediately.

SpaceCadet doesn't really describe you well enough

No, it's far better applied to the guy you see in the mirror.