They aren't good with it at all. Convert CO2 slowly, take space to do that, take other resources like fertilizers, require some shielding from pests and herbs, can produce massive fires... They have advantages, but it's not a silver bullet, especially when you're in a hurry.
That is not to say biofuel don't have a role to play. Agriculture and forestry wastes, municipal biowaste, etc. can all be used for energy. And yeah, it makes sense to use the available biofuel for sectors that are otherwise very hard to decarbonise, such as aviation.
Algae, well, that has been researched for decades with very little to show for it. It has great potential, but it seems very difficult to make it actually work.
I just don't see any way that synthesis of jet fuel from atmospheric carbon makes any sense for anybody but a nuclear Navy.
The other problem is that biofuel isn't actually all that green. It still needs lots of fertilizer, pesticides, farm equipment, etc., that ultimately gives it a relatively high GHG output.
At some point, we need to bite the bullet and go with hydrogen or one of its derivative fuels (e.g. ammonia, methanol, etc.). People are constantly trying to imagine a solution that avoids this outcome, but no one has come up with anything that looks like a viable alternative.
Even the worst electrolysis driven by cheap solar does better.
But that was before solar and wind became substantially cheaper than petroleum.