Subsidizing never, ever created a good solution.
It always makes poor solutions, that cost more than they are worth.
Compare to subsidizing medicaments.
When they are subsidized then they cost more then when government lifts the subsidy.
If you want a good solution then make it fight for life in the current market, eventually it might win - in this case you will really get a good solution.
Ideological handwaving never results in a good argument.
Here is the basic problem with the market for energy. Say I give you the choice of two candy bars: one costs you $1.00, the other costs you $0.75 and also costs some random third party $0.75. Which do you pick? The latter, of course. Everyone always picks the latter, and the end result is economically inefficient.
This is the same choice when it comes to energy. A Harvard study found that the externalized costs of coal range from $350-500 billion: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/16/us-usa-coal-study-.... Fully half the true cost of coal power is externalized to people outside the transaction of power producers/power users. The market doesn't yield efficient results when costs can be externalized like this. That's Econ 101 level knowledge. There are only two ways to fix this market failure: either tax coal power to reflect the externalized costs, or subsidize green tech to compensate. In our political system new taxes are pretty much impossible, hence we adopt the latter solution.
Gasoline prices are already subsidized. We spend megabucks on aid to the middle east, wars, etc there that isn't paid for by the users of the oil pumped from there.
If you want a good solution then make it fight for life in the current market, eventually it might win - in this case you will really get a good solution.