The phrase "renewable energy" is ambiguous and misleading. The important question about an energy technology is whether it is sustainable. The US EIA lists waste and wood as renewable energy resources. That is political humbug, or what is sarcastically called "political correctness". Another word is "greenwashing".
The consuming of waste as a source of process heat is a kind of energy conservation. I hope there are no plans to increase the production of actual waste, even although it is indeed being persistently renewed.
As for wood, it is a resource whose renewable supply has not been renewed, but steadily consumed, since for instance the eastern seaboard of North America was systematically denuded of primeval forest.
I suspect that the present enormous human population of this planet could not have existed without the discovery of fossil carbon fuels.
These, and the oxygen with which we burn them, are in fact fossil solar energy created and stored over a period of at least 64 million years, the Carboniferous Era.
That is a longer span of time than the 40 million that Lord Kelvin reckoned as the time it would take an almost entirely molten Earth to cool down to its present state, counting the fact that heat flows into deep mines from even deeper rocks.
He was of course blamelessly ignorant of the fact of radioactivity, and its inordinate longevity within this planet. Kelvin noted that as the carbon is consumed, so is the supply of oxygen, and the total mass of the atmosphere has been knowable since the decade when Torricelli invented the barometer.
Kelvin gave that figure as approximately 5,100 million million tons.