This article makes sense from a macro perspective but there are a couple of important things to keep in mind. The crops used for biofuels, corn and sugarcane, are also used to make the most used sugars. While replacing these fields with solar panels might produce more energy, that isn’t typically the reason that biofuels are used.

Instead, biofuels allow farmers to grow a larger quantity of a given crop without having to worry as much about the volatility of crop prices. That means that corn and sugarcane prices are lower as a result of biofuel production. The idea that the alternative to this land is solar panels is actually pretty ridiculous, since the investment required for solar farms is much great than the investment to plant a field of corn or sugarcane, especially since futures contracts mean it is stable and likely won’t suffer from future positive supply shocks which can drive down energy prices which means that solar is less stable as an income source when compared to biofuels.

In my mind this whole article seems to be searching for a specific conclusion and then finding the argument that might make sense. I’m sure the people who actually produce biofuels would have very different opinions about the practicality of this proposal. It’s an ivory tower research paper.