Because we would still be locked into a higher cost of energy than our competitors world wide. That would hurt us. As far as biomass being stable, that's unlikely. Crops vary significanlty. It rains too much, it doesn't rain enough etc.
"Because we would still be locked into a higher cost of energy than our competitors world wide."
Competitors? Who are we competing with on price?
I guess you're saying that you'd prefer that we us just continue to gyrate wildly, like a yo-yo on a string, while games are played with the current sources of supply? This doesn't sound like a good course to pursue.
And, biomass isn't the only game. Oil shale, oil sands and coal gassification, plus expanded nuclear power generation are doable now, provided OPEC doesn't pull the rug out from under it again by dropping to $20.00/bbl., and they will, if the past is any indication.