Or, are you saying green energy doesn't exist? If so, feel free to explain the ruse.
As best as I can explain to a non-engineer:
The Second Law of Thermodynamics requires energy to be concentrated before it does useful work. The laws of thermodynamics aren't laws you can bend or break. Nature has no progressives on its Supreme Court. Sunshine and the rotation of the Earth are dispersed energy. They need to be concentrated if you want to do anything with them. There's also the earth's heat of formation, which is so deep as to be practically inaccessible. You can't just drill magma wells.
There are four ways Nature has given us to store concentrated energy, in reverse order of density:
1. Packing a lot of protons into a single atom
2. Packing a lot of atoms into a single molecule
3. Separating electrons from protons and packing them into a concentrated space
4. Putting mass up somewhere high
The first isn't "green" because you can't split just any old atom, and the atoms that are big enough to split are rare and dangerous. The second isn't "green" because burning things creates toxins and CO2. The third isn't "green" because you need a lot of dangerous chemicals to make that happen, and they also happen to be non-renewable. Also, since it's not very dense, you need comically enormous amounts of material to do about the same thing. It takes about 20-25 pounds of batteries to usefully store the same amount of energy that 1-2 pounds of hydrocarbons can. It's also less mass-dense, so you need a lot of space, too. Which means a lot of infrastructure. Which means more of those non-renewable materials. The 4th isn't practical at all to make at scale, and hydroelectric dams have been deemed not "green" anyway because fish don't like them.
That's just the storage side. Dispersed energy doesn't just concentrate itself. You need complex machines made of very, very non-renewable resources with lots of toxic side-effects to concentrate dispersed energy. No way around it. Thermodynamics says you have to. Since the energy is dispersed, the amount of this non-renewable, often toxic material you need to gather it is immense compared to, say, mining equipment.
These problems lead to yet another problem: real power systems need base capacity. Power drawn from the sun and the motion of the Earth is extremely intermittent, so the need for something else doesn't just go away. There simply is no physical way to build enough acres and acres and acres of batteries needed to provide base load during winter months, and probably no way to construct enough windmills and solar panels to fill them up during the summer. So you fundamentally can't avoid any of those icky non-green forms of energy collection & storage.
A side factor is we still haven't seem to come up with a net-positive way of even doing solar energy. That is, the energy consumed by manufacturing, maintaining, and disposing sun & wind-based power across its lifecycle always seems to come out to be more than what's generated. But maybe there will be a viable solution some day.
Thus "green energy" doesn't exist. Even if the lifecycle energy budget problem is solved, the density problem is baked into the laws of the universe. It lurches on because well-connected lobbyists ensure government subsidies keep flowing to them, and rely on messaging to people who don't understand where power comes from to ensure political support for their subsidies never goes away.
