The bond/energy issue between biology usage and chemistry usage is obviously
a problem. Of course the whole "breaking bonds releases energy" thing leads
to misconceptions, and, of course, one could largely avoid that problem by
pointing out that there are instead a SERIES of reactions involving both
breaking and forming bonds; the sum total of which results in a net release
of energy. Certainly biologists take chemistry and know what is really
happening; so one might wonder why this terminology (or shorthand) remains
in the literature.
One of the problems is that this misleading idea results in ripples that
extend farther. Firstly, the idea is pretty self-consistent, which makes
resulting misconceptions even stronger. And it has the virtue of
simplicity; something that always finds favor with students.
For example, food as fuel (or anything as fuel) is easier to deal with if
one refers to fuel as "containing energy" that simply needs to be
"released". Ultimately, of course, a good "fuel" is one that has weak
internal bonding, but whose constituents will form strong(er) bonds with the
oxygen in the air. So where is the energy actually "stored"; or is that
whole "storage" idea a poor one?
It's certainly much less intuitive to have to deal with energy being stored
in "fields", especially when one would undoubtedly get arguments about
whether fields are actually "real", can be treated as "objects/things", and
how such "storage" might manifest itself.
So, it may not be a matter of laziness or simple misuse so much as one of
avoiding complications that could easily obscure the point one is trying to
make. Perhaps the solution is to simply take chemistry first and get the
background explanations in place beforehand, so proper usage can be employed
without introducing unwanted complications.