Systems engineering is a discipline that looks at everything that happens from feedstock to finished product and how to make it robust, efficient, and profitable. Cost accounting is a discipline where the cost of each step in a products life is measured and tallied. These two disciplines are exactly why biofuels are not yet economically viable (at least without wasteful subsidies). And I believe it is a safe assumption that getting funding for a corporation to set up a business model (as opposed to getting funding for R&D) someone needs to have done the math to show that the it is a viable model.
The problem with biofuels is that they are currently a leftists wet pipe dream because leftists are incapable of doing math. Just look at the national budget under a Democrat controlled congress.
Engineering takes SCIENCE and turns it into REALITY. That is why there is a huge difference between a nuclear physicist an a nuclear engineer. This is why there is a big difference between a biochemist, and a chemical engineer. When someone says "we have the science" that may be true, but we don't always have the engineering to turn the science into a profitable reality.
Does anyone remember "Golden Rice"? The first generation of "golden rice" (biofortified with Vitamin A) had such a small amount of Vitamin A that it was essentially worthless, and critics latched on to this fact with a vengeance. But what the critics didn't recognize was that once the science had shown it could be done it became an engineering project to adjust the vitamin content to a useful level. Within two generations this was accomplished. Now the only obstacle to ending childhood blindness in the developing world is the various legal hurdles from the developed world.
So when I say that biofuels aren't a viable option, it isn't because the science isn't there, it is because the engineering hasn't worked out a way to make it profitable and efficient. Yet.