See above. That is a valid claim to subsidy, but it's not the one I'm referring to, which involves, depending on your view / word choices: total factor costs, solar emergy cost, or natural capital costs.

However you like to think about the end result is more dollars in my pocket - yes?

It's a net decrease in total wealth, if you include natural capital in that metric. Various authorities differ on that. As early as the late 19th century, Adam Smith's biographer and scholar Edwin Cannan was noting that Smith's definition of wealth, "the annual labour and produce of the nation", doesn't account for natural capital: farmland, forests, fisheries, game, topsoil, and natural resources.