thanks for your comment. My last line about subsidies for fossil fuel was mainly a throwaway chuckle - although it is the case that
Politicians are having a hard time owning up to the uncertainty about energy prices, and what influence they really have.
The vast majority (80%) of energy price rises in the UK over the past ten years have been due to the increasing price of wholesale gas, not the subsidy for wind as you imply.
The choice going forward is between a fossil fuel system and a clean energy system (and in the UK the latter will have a hefty chunk of wind).
You seem to favour non-wind as you say the costs are high - but you provide no comparisons, and it is the total cost of the energy system which matters. One part of this is the subsidies to fossil fuels, totalling $500bn direct and $1000bn including indirect, compared to about $50bn which goes to renewable energy.
Finally, you say "Despite claims by wind energy promoters about wind energy LCOE parity with grid prices being just a few years in the future (to keep the subsidies flowing), the reality is otherwise." But for onshore wind parity does exist in an increasing number of locations, as Bloomberg New Energy Finance have pointed out.