Really? Not again! Having worked in agriculture for more than five decades, I have had more than a little exposure to the whole bio fuels circus. One of my ongoing interests is to get a technical definition of “sustainable” agriculture. I have yet to get an answer. As for waste biomass conversion to usable fuels, that was the promise of the near future at least 30 years ago when using corn and soybeans to produce ethanol and biodiesel were just temporary steps before converting to waste biomass and the use of cellulosic digestion to make ethanol, and no reasonable substitutes for light oil based products. Everyone is still waiting after decades of research that failed to provide a workable substitution of waste biomass for fuel production.
Hundreds of studies have been done to evaluate the comparative energy and resource inputs to measure whether there is a net gain in energy and carbon offsets from the conversion of crops into combustible fuels. Most of those studies (essentially all if you look outside the corn/soybean belt) show there is usually a net loss in the conversion (you put in more energy and carbon than you get back), a few that suggest a break even outcome, and very occasionally one that shows a small net gain.
The current problems with this scheme include the high energy inputs to collect, haul, and process waste biomass, the lack of direct conversion from biomass to usable fuels, and of course the carbon dioxide release from providing the heat energy and transportation. This does not include air pollution restrictions in states like CA were burning biomass has essentially outlawed by the CA air resources board.
Simply put, more green washing and woke virtue signaling by United and Honeywell, and probably a con job by Alder.