How are you defining green then? Just like how solar panels and batteries involve mining for minerals and refining them so does nuclear energy. It has many benefits and I support it but I wouldn't label it green energy.
Water and gravity, one of the most ancient of technologies is actually proving to be probably one of the most green forms of energy storage to date. Pump water uphill with excess energy during the day/windytime/active wave time/etc then let gravity use it to produce energy on its way down.
Of course electric cars still use some oil but they use a lot less fluids and have fewer parts to go bad and replace. With battery advancements electric cars will definitely be a force to be reckoned with but they aren't quite there yet.
The batteries cause more harm to the environment that gas does. Mining the materials for them is destructive and the batteries cannot be recycled, but must sit in a landfill forever, same goes with the fans on a wind powered turbine. Those have to be replaced and when they do, it just sits.
We went over this with Omni months ago and the convo went in circles. Now add in the XL pipe line, instead of oil being pumped down a tube, now it has to be driven by thousands of trucks and ships, which all consume gas and have pollutants.. Yes that is way more green than having a steel pipe.
The issue with H20 power/Ocean, how many tree hugger org's fight against building such a thing?
I do think some people's hearts are in the right place, but not their brain.
The only thing making E cars cool is Tesla. I know a good amount of Porsche owners who bought 1. They would never buy a Prius or even a BMW E car.