Strawman argument. Sure government funded research greatly benefitted the aerospace, maritime, and nuclear fields, but the government DID NOT subsidize any commercial developments from these, and if they did, it usually had a negative effect. Wind and Solar power are intermittent energy sources that require extensive backups and do not accomplish the stated goal of reducing carbon emissions. In fact, extensive development of these resources have the opposite effect as to maintain a reliable grid, the use of combustion technologies have to be increased. Look no further than Germany's Energiwiende. CO2 emissions have almost doubled since the started shutting down the nukes and going wind/solar.
The money spent on subsidizing solar and wind could have been spent on subsidizing a few 1200 MWe nuke plants, which would have allowed better environmental results. Not that I want subsidies for nuclear. I am opposed to government subsidies in ALL forms.
I believe batteries will become smaller, lighter, cheaper, with huge range improvements. As such I believe electric vehicles (E only + hybrids) will make bigger inroads for transportation.
It is a separate subject, from how electricity is generated (coal, nat gas, wind, solar, nuclear etc.)
(drilling/producing hydrocarbons also has certain "subsidies" depletion, etc.)
Vehicle mkers have invested heavily in electric technology.
I know a wealthy conservative man. He owns 3 Porsches, including a Panamera. But he is going to Germany to see the latest model, Missioon E, which is an electric.
His interest is purely technology. Much technology has started at the high end. A/C, power windows, but eventually moves down to middle and low priced vehicles.
I'll leave the argument about subsidies, to politicians.