Biomass, according to IEA [1], is 10% of global primary energy production. It might not contribute lot in the US, but for example here in Finland, wood biomass accounts for one quarter of all the primary energy production.

1: https://www.iea.org/topics/renewables/subtopics/bioenergy/

They are TOTALLY playing games. Solar and Wind are relatively young, but power generated by Water based dams have been around for decades, yet only biomass is mentioned. The omission is deliberate.

1. The world's available hydro resources are nearly tapped.

2. Hydro power generation is only second to coal in the number of people it killed. [1]

3. Hydro power generation is complete hell on the environment.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hydroelectric_power_st...

Those are all valid points. But why were they skipped over? Why was solar and wind skipped over? It barely mentions them, pretends that they don't exist.

Solar, wind and hydro are energy sources that depend on weather and cannot be regulated except by throwing the generated energy away, thus with today's energy grids cannot be used as majority of the generating capacity. On the other hand biomass can be stored and used according to demand.

Pumped storage is in the grand scheme of things horrendously inefficient in essentially any metric one cares about (energy efficiency, capacity per size, capacity for cost...).

Those are still not reasons to exclude them in a list of "safest major power sources".