The LCFS has resulted in 47.1 million tons of GHG emissions credits, but 38.7 million tons of GHG deficits since 2011, so only 8.7M in net credits.

EVs and PHEVs have resulted in some 4.3 billion tons of GHG emissions avoided since 2011. (Using sales numbers and the AFDC site for CA: https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html; also, this doesn't even account for HEVs...)

Performance issues aren't really that problematic and as the industry ramps up, reuse and recycling industries will grow to support the increasing number of batteries that are no longer suitable for their original use.

Bio-fuels have the problem of raising food prices and using valuable farm land for fuel. (There is a cartoon with a rich, white guy taking a banana from a poor, brown kid and telling him that he needs this to fuel his vehicle. I encourage you to Google it...)

Bio-fuels have also never shown an ability to ramp up to the level required, i.e., sufficient size to provide fuel for the entire world.

Happy to continue the discussion.

The future of Biofuel seems bleak as it has been successfully killed by the promoters of fossil fuel - something similar to renewable not cutting edge even now over fossil fuels. Bio fuel did make a great news and demonstrated the world that it is quite competitive to replace fossil fuel both in efficiency and emission relief. Somehow this has not been picked up properly may be due to vested interests or the quantum availability. In a country like India we have a choice of species for cultivation - Jatropha, Pongamia and others. I have demonstrated that these species could easily be grown successfully on abandoned ash pond sites which are large areas of land ( 1 acre per MW just to dump ash and a 1000 MW would require 1000 acres of land).
The additional benefits of biofuel have been demonstrated through my publication which can be brwosed through net - De-oiled cake is an excellent manure; Glycerine, a by product has industrial applications and more importantly, biofuel spray on pulverised coal enhances the calorific value to almost double and thus reducing coal consumption in Thermal Power Plants and consequent reduction in air emissions.
In my opinion, it is not too late to lean on biofuel as everyone of us is aware the disposal consequences of batteries.

Biofuels have the problem of the huge amount of land required to grow them, a monoculture with a loss of biodiversity in places where are cultivated.
More efforts must be done in batteries, and in the energy to charge them, this last thing, the most important.

Biodiesel seems to be potential to substitute the use of fossil fuel in future. Alas, biodiesel production using the commercial methods which are transesterification and esterification take very long reaction time and the purification is not easy. Moreover, the quality of the Biodiesel produced is not as high as the commercial petrol.
I would like to suggest of using synthetic gaseous instead of bio diesel as the source of Bioenergy.

The answer should be both. Batteries will be continue to improve but neither technology (bio or bat) alone will solve climate change. Good news/bad news - there's plenty of carbon for everyone and room for multiple solutions to work together..

Biofuels are at best carbon neutral. The biology used to make the fuel has pulled the CO2 from the air, the burning of the biofuel returns it. It is neutral only if the production of the biofuel doesn't add any CO2 in addition to the CO2 the plant removed. In this sense it is extremely better than removing carbon (oil) from the ground and releasing it as CO2. Comparing biofuels to batteries, however, is inappropriate. Batteries can't generate energy, they store it. You could even charge your EV by burning biofuels. Biofuels versus oil; a good thing, biofuel versus solar cells; biofuels loose, biofuels versus a battery; nonsensical. There are good carbon footprints on the production of batteries available, there are also some pretty good estimates on the actual carbon footprint of biofuel production.