It's a very good question.
Let me give you some numbers from Europe--and they will vary to North America's. In Europe they've looked at taking a given cubic metre of wood and asking, do we put it into bioenergy or do we put it into pulp and paper? The interesting numbers are that in terms of GDP, you get a GDP multiplier eight times greater in pulp and paper than in bioenergy, and for employment, it's 13 times greater.
In terms of the number of metrics that we care about as communities, the pulp and paper, which often we'll put into the export market, has actually generated more activity at home. That being said, we are looking at bioenergy for a whole host of reasons, mostly dealing with anxiety, and that anxiety is partly, as you mentioned, energy security. It's dealing with environmental security, political security—we want to get activity in the communities that have fallen.
I think the reality right now is that we have to take a fairly dispassionate look at this—what makes sense right now economically. There is a whole host of energy products we could make, from the low-technology pellets to the higher-technology cellulosic ethanol bio-refiners. There's no one answer, but I can give you a quick gut response.
In terms of our high-tech use of the forest for energy or biochemicals, we are really five to seven years away from commercialization. We can't make money right now, which is one of the roles we want for the R and D, to help us understand how to do this in a more cost-effective way.
Scale is also very important when we look at this, because when we are looking at cellulosic ethanol.... The first plant that is going to be built in North America is going to be in the state of Georgia. It's 100 million gallons. It requires--