Biofuels may be carbon neutral but in densely populated areas, residents get the full concentrated doses doused upon them. What could work in sparsely populated locations does not provide any pollution reduction in densely populated environments.
So what is the actual sense behind biofuels other than nonsense?

Ethanol and gasoline from corn stalks is possible

So what is the actual sense behind biofuels other than nonsense?
As @Carl and @James point out, the FT CANS Technology is using biomass waste which left to rot will create GHG. Yes it is feed source agnostic and uses CCS to make sure CO2 is also part of the fuel instead of simply burning the waste.
As pointed out, FT CANS technology “ converts synthesis gas (syngas), generated from sources such as industrial emissions, direct air capture, municipal solid waste or other biomass, into long-chain hydrocarbons suitable for the production of renewable diesel and sustainable aviation fuels.”
While this project is currently focused on renewable diesel, sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) is the most important area for biofuels. SAF is an accepted choice of the airlines and will not greatly affect any specific community.

@gryf SAF is the only way to have trans Pacific 10000km plus flights only liquid hydrocarbons have the energy density to fuel such flights no conceivable or theoretical battery technology has the energy density to power such a flight. Liquid hydrogen has 1/3 the density of liquid fuels on a volume basis the tanks would need to be three times as large. Hydrogen will work for regional or trans continental flights but why go through the trouble to totally redesign the airframe, power plants, fuel systems and most importantly the fuel infrastructure worldwide when you can use FT tech to make JP8 or Jet A1 spec fuels from any form of biomass be it wastes or energy crops or salt water agriculture/aquaculture. The entire USA jet fuel consumption could be covered with just the agricultural wastes currently left in tbe fields to rot the vast bulk of the USA liquid fuel consumption is personal LDV. The second most is medium/heavy duty trucks. Those two are why we need to move local.driving as in under 50 miles per day which is 95% of all LDV driving to plug in hybrids or BEV run the hybrid engines on biofuels or electro fuels made with off peak or curtailment energy for the 5% of trips over 50 miles this alone would cut 95% of all liquid fuel usage in the LDV sector without needing $30,000+ battery packs a tesla 3 goes 4 miles per kwh a 15kwh LiFePO4 pack taken to 80% DOD is 12kwh usable or 48 miles that covers 95% of ALL LDV trips in a daily basis. Even at $150 a kwh a 15kwh pack is $2250 the electric drive trains are going to be mass produced and replace all forms of transmissions and differentials only the source of electricity will matter be it a large battery pack or a small pack and a 2-3 cylinder ICE running on some form of high density liquid fuel from a cheap plastic tank not Gucci eexpensive carbon fiber pressure tanks with boutique hydrogen gas at 700+ bar. It's much cheaper to have a $2250 pack plus a 2cyl 1000cc modified 16:1 compression motorcycle engine driving a AC generator into the inverters of the electric drive units which have to be present in a BEV anyways. It's a given that a small 15kwh pack and cheap modified moto engine is going to cost less than a 80kwh pack. I don't understand the hard on for large packs they weight literally a ton or more and will never ...NEVER have the energy density of liquid fuels that's pure freshmen level physics.

I digress this was about aviation fuels so in the USA, Aircraft use 9%, rail 4% and water(domestic ships/barges/ferrys) 2% all three of those combined could be fueled with FT synthetics and all three need the 35+MJ/L energy density to complete their missions. The USA is too vast for electrification of rails across the great plains its vastly cheaper to use diesel electric locos and fuel them with FT fuels there is a case there for LNG tanker cars as fuel tenders and dualfuel locos engines. In that case landfill gas as SNG makes sense if readily available or synthetic methane from FT syn tech using Iron catalysts in FT at high temps yields.mostly C1-C4 alkanes methane,ethane,propane,butane the first two are.liquids at cryo temps the.second two at room temp and 120-200psi either can be put into tanker cars and pulled as tenders directly behind a dualfuel loco. One tender car =30000 gallons
One gal propane is 92500btu, one gal butane is 130,000 btu.

30000*92500= 2,775,000,000 /3412btu/kwh=813,305.978898 kwh or 813 megawatt hours large diesel loco engines are 44 to 48% efficient. Let that sink in that s over 400 MEGAWATTS in a single tanker car as a tender batteries will NEVER equal that again it's the laws of physics.

For butane as a tender fuel it goes up drastically.
30,000*130,000/3412=1,143,024.6189917 kwh that s over a gigawatt hour even at 44% efficiency well over 500 megawatt hours. You would need a warehouse of lithium cells to equal that and this is why trains,ships and aircraft will always use liquid fuels for any mission requiring real distances to be covered as in 100+ miles. Aircraft and ships operate in the thousands to tens of thousands of miles per single trip.

https://afdc.energy.gov/data/mobile/10566

https://afdc.energy.gov/data/mobile/10569

https://afdc.energy.gov/data/mobile/10661