Well sarcasm aside, Site C is not green, any energy project that floods and destroys up to 57,000 acres, a significant part of it that is class one climate capability farmland and wildlife habitat, and releases large amounts of methane and methyl mercury into the atmosphere and biosphere can hardly be considered green.

We don't need the sun to shine all day, or the wind to blow all day, or even geothermal to be a large contributor.  We have a large surplus of electricity to our needs, and we can utilize that surplus better than we do.  Efficiency and conservation improvements to a less wasteful standard such as a European electricity use level are enough to get us through for a couple of decades if we moderately adopt small scale and appropriate alternatives.