Good luck with that. Despite hundreds of billions in subsidies over the years, biofuels remain at best five times the cost of regular fuels at any meaningful production level.
I can come up with optimistic business models too. All kinds of them if you pay me
Out of concern over supplies, the US military has tried this experiment already on several occasions over several decades (cost being a secondary issue because it's taxpayer money after all). Result was the same; costs at least 5 times over what they could otherwise get under best conditions and sometimes orders of magnitude more. And the US has been continuing this boondoggle as well on a smaller scale with the ethanol mandate (a fraction of gasoline being spiked with ethanol--usually 10 percent or so); horrendously inefficient conversion cycle, higher crop prices (meaning higher food and feed prices), increased long term wear on fuel systems (many bios are hygroscopic and readily absorb water), no benefit whatsoever.
And for what ? We've repeatedly debunked the 'green' scam (where CO2 is somehow thought to be a pollutant which is isn't and somehow increases our planet's temperature--which it doesn't) on this very site. The '97' percenters being carefully chosen to be a small sample of 'scientists' who agree with the 'theory' (and NO scientist uses words like 'incontrovertable' or 'irrefutable' to try to shut others with different opinions and conclusions up).
When you can measure something with limited precision only to 1.1 , arguing whether it's 1.050069 or 1.050070 is meaningless. And ol' sol is just a big hydrogen campfire of sorts whose output does vary from time to time; any variation in that or orbital factors of the earth dwarf what anything manmade can do.
But Rutan says it better than I can
http://burtrutan.com/downloads/EngrCritiqueCAGW-v4o3.pdf
His charts are prettier too...
So the 'green' scam has simply been to line folks' pockets and make up a tax scheme to tax energy (no matter how clean you burn a hydrocarbon you ALWAYS get CO2 and water--it's tough for a rabid green to argue against more fresh water so they target carbon which has the added psychological effect of people thinking 'dirty' rather than 'diamonds.'). And there's no shortage of cases of models that don't work or even faking data so they kinda work--for a while. When you tie in funding with making 'scientific' conclusions and an ability of governments to get more money through taxes on the seemingly well off you get a very unholy alliance.
The planet do what she do. We can make it locally junky for a time period (with REAL pollutants--which is the place that efforts to fix things should be targeted toward) but even these wash away in a relatively short time by terrestrial standards.
Any form of energy has externalities. I just hope folks aren't spending too much money making themselves feel good about themselves for no scientific rational reason. But maybe if they feel good that's good enough (just don't spend MY money as a part of it).
I do hope this works; most of history so far says it won't. Will the human race run out of fossils some day ? Sure. But we've never run out of energy sources. Best to spend the money on making our own little suns rather than something based on a myth I think.
But best of luck !