Obviously we're going in the right direction as coal sucks for a lot of reasons (as does every single one of our energy options), but we also still really really need it, at least for a couple of more decades. In the mean time we should acquire it and use it in the most reasonable and efficient and clean way possible. I don't understand how something that provides us nearly 40% of our electricity can be a HA unless you also think electricity is a horrible thing...but that would be stupid.
Wow, I didn't know wood still had the sort of share that would actually show up on a chart like this.
Also, where would garbage incinerators go? Renewables (even though that would be kind of a misnomer)? Or, hm, perhaps "wood" really means "biomass" and includes incinerators as well. Not that it's a super-common way to get energy in the US, so doubt that would be the whole explanation even if true.
If you look at the EIA's breakdown of "other renewables" (in various charts on its web site), it includes categories called "landfill gas", "biogenic municipal solid waste", and "other waste biomass". I would guess that the systems you have in mind are somehow covered in these three. All are much smaller sources than wood and wood-derived fuels.
"Wood" here (nowadays - not for the historic parts of the above chart) mainly means wood waste from the forestry industry used for electricity generation. In areas with sawmills or pulp and paper mills, there are often nearby power plants that burn waste products like pellets or liquid byproducts of the paper-making process.
Poll
