Reading up on what people determine a "subsidy" is very subjective.
For example, Matt Cannavan doesn't believe that Australia subsidies the coal industry, however the IMF report that I linked to above seems to include "For example, the IMF
paper includes subsidising the costs of fuels used to
extract resources,
accelerated depreciation for assets and funding for
fossil fuel export projects." I haven't yet found the breakdown of that IMF paper, but found that from this article.
Contrary to the Morrison government’s claims, it does prop up the fossil fuel industry. But the money doesn’t create many jobs or much profit.
theconversation.com
Subsidies to reduce the cost of extraction, minimise tax through accelerated depreciation (as this has a significant benefit to NPV calculations) should absolutely be treated as subsidies.
On the other hand, its repeatedly stated that renewable subsidies also amount into the $bns however, Feed in tariffs are reported within this. This is only a "subsidy" because of the policy of the government and the setup of the industry. It has no impact on the systems or whether to install them, in any other way than saying that FIT should be paid by the retailer (not the government) and the government should just stipulate what the minimum FIT is.
My understanding of this (I used to own a house and received FIT's), is that the solar system is paid by the houseowner (there were at one time REC's which were definitely subsidies off the purchase price), who then continues to purchase energy off the grid from the local retailer at say 25-30c / kwh when they weren't producing from their system. When their system produces too much, those kwh's are sold back into the grid of the retailer who claims the FIT from the government and then reimburses that back to the homeowner. The retailer I believe can then sell that kwh back to homeowners at the stated 25-30c / kwh, so actually if the government just stayed out of this, this is cheap energy that retailers can purchase that is not from the distributors (in Melbourne there are only 2). Its absurb to report FIT's as a subsidy IMO.
Renewable energy sources such as wind and solar will receive subsidies of about $3 billion a year up to 2030, according to new research.
www.afr.com
The above report from the AFR reports on both, they do include FIT's as a subsidy, but even here there calculations are that:
"On a per megawatt hour basis, solar received the largest subsidies with $214, followed by wind on $74, while other renewable sources received $33 per megawatt hour. The report found subsidies to coal generation amounted to about 40 cents per megawatt hour, while generation from non-renewable sources overall were 30 cents per megawatt hour"
