I was rather confused by this until I saw the 2011 date. Things have changed quite a bit, it doesn't appear at all on this chart, but the US now consumes 3.0 quadrillion Btu from wind energy in 2021, more than any other renewable.[0]
Also, according to that chart, 0% of the US energy comes from nuclear but [1] has it at 20%. What's going on?
Only the parts that are consumed in energy production (aka not physical elements in other products). Then the EIA kind of makes judgement calls where it's messy.
The difference is one is measuring ELECTRICITY (where 20% nuclear would make sense), and the other is TOTAL ENERGY (which is electricity + transportation + energy used in heating physical processes etc)
In terms of nuclear this link says 8 Quad BTU (out of who knows how many units in TOTAL ENERGY) https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=10
and the other says 20% of electricity
GP's chart should be considered a blow-up of the 20% of U.S. energy that your link shows from renewable sources. Within that context the numbers match up pretty well, except that biomass is much more heavily represented in [0] than in [1].
You can't run a plastic industry without high density energy - fossil is the best for that short of nuclear. Simple matter of Carnot. No way to fake it or break it.
Feedstocks also ONLY can come from oil. Not even coal works as well. You must have carbon in the supply chain.
Sadly a lot of Soviet-style propaganda and erasure of "inconvenient" information is absolutely happening with every .gov site these days.
Quads is also use in the USA (and by a nibling comment) as a short for quadrillion BTUs which is roughly equal to 1 exa Joule or just short of 300 terawatt hours. 3 quads is roughly equivalent to 3 EJ or 880 Twh
Then we have kilo-tonne, which could be a unit of weight (I wonder why mega-gram never became a thing in stead of the tonne) but is usually the explosive power of an equal amount of TNT.
And none of the above had any of the American eccentrism we all love to make fun of, which have in addition to the aforementioned BTU have their own foot-pound and foot-ounce (when I pound on your door I exert a force of around 4.5 newtons on your door; and my ounce of strength is just one-sixteenth of that force).
It is a poor convention, I assume brought about by marketing purposes.