I think it boils down to a lot of investors (like Khosla) invested big on biofuels in recent years. Same goes for politicians who thought they were doing good by naively passing biofuels mandates (or at least were politically posturing to LOOK like they were doing good).

Nobody wants to admit they were wrong, so the debate rages and people keep pushing biofuels. Kudos to the students at UW!

America's brightest scientists, as well as more than 35 Nobel prize winners, are currently working on biofuels. From Steve Chu to Craig Venter - you name them.

It's good to point to some of the problems with first-generation simpleton non-fuels. Nobody is saying they are the fuels we need to invest in.

But it would be rather silly to throw first generation fuels on the same heap as second, third and fourth generation fuels.

That would be like saying that 1950s solar panels which were 3% efficient are the same as modern CSP plants.

None of the Nobel prizes is "wrong" about biofuels or has to "admit a mistake" about their work, because they're only beginning to work on biofuels.

Biofuels are most obviously the only bet we have to avoid economic and social breakdown on a planetary scale. There is no alternative.

This doesn't mean that we shouldn't be critical about current practises.  But it also means we have to be patient and let the brilliant minds do their work.

The students, who seem to be the real biofools (as in: they don't know much about biology), must simply be more nuanced. Yes, first-gen fuels encounter some minor problems; fourth-gen fuels will encounter fewer problems. Give it some time.

...Texas (on behalf of the governor) has asked to reduce it's biofuel mandate by half.

The governor says it's because it hurts poor families.  Some have speculated it's because of his big ties to oil and gas.

Either way.

Comments like those of Jonas and Erik show an extreme lack of maturity, a wish to continue highly destructive lifestyles first and save the Earth second.

Specifically:

Biofuels do nothing to help reverse human-caused global warming.  ANY fuel burned, including biofuel, emits pollutants, and the BEST one you can get is CO2.  The rest are even more toxic.  (To be more accurate, CO2 is not "toxic," but the immense and unnatural human emissions of it are one of the main causes of global warming.)

Using plants for biofuels either destroys natural land, such as the tropical rainforests in Malaysia, Indonesia, and Brazil that are currently being destroyed for biofuels, or takes the land used to grow those plants out of food production, either making food more scarce or raising its price.

Sorry folks, but the way forward is much less energy use and lower populations, coupled with less environmentally harmful technologies.  It's not just some pipe dream about magical technological solutions that has no basis in reality.

Wolverine, do you mean we should get off our huge hind-quarters and do something? With our own sinews? Like bicycle and walk for transportation and grow a bit of food in the yard? But then how will we keep our pharmaceutical industry going if we don't give ourselves heart disease, diabetes, colon cancer, high blood pressure and ADHD? Next you'll suggest that with these fitter bodies we won't need to keep the thermostat at 75F.

No, no no, we need to drive to get our new toys. We need to drive so we can look like we are too rich and busy to give a damn about the early victims of climate change. We are children who need to pin our hopes on unrealistic pipe dreams of unlimited energy free from all environmental consequences. Stop messing with our fantasy.

But it would be helpful to know what assumptions lie behind a statement like biofuels are "a small and important part of our energy mix and will be going forward."

Are you assuming the continuation of subsidies ($1.00 per gallon, minimum, from the feds, plus up to another $1.00 per gallon from the states in the case of biodiesel) and mandates? If so, then I suppose any energy source will be "a small and important part of our energy mix" if the government requires you use it and throws lots of money at it.

If not, how much biofuel production (e.g., as a fraction of current consumption of transport fuels) do you think would exist in the absence of subsidies and mandates?

These are only my personal opinions.

As I always say

Aircraft, Cargo Ships, and Military vehicles will be wanting their liquid fuels for a long long time.

Trains too for quite a while.
(Although most of these are already series diesel hybrids.  Halfway there.)

Catch of course being,
We have the option between biofuels, heavy oils, tar sands, and liquid coal. Frankly I'm not sure which one is best out of those choices. Because they all include a considerable amount of emissions.