Maksimovich,
I am a bit confused by your response.
First, you didn’t really address the point I was making. To put my main point a different way, for me to be persuaded that making fossil fuel subsidies transparent (apparently without being concerned about all the other subsidies and distortions in the energy market) is the highest priority for our initial efforts, I’d want to see evidence that the subsidies are of such a scale that, if we removed them, the decisions as to which power stations to build would change sufficiently to make a significant difference (to improve reliability of supply, cost of electricity, health and safety and emissions). I am not at all convinced that would be the case. I also suspect focusing on this, in a clearly partial way, would actually increase the distortions.
Secondly, your points 1 to 5 are arguing that we must focus on fossil fuel subsidies. However, points 6 and 7 seem to argue we need to make special cases (I suspect you mean subsidies and mandating) for non-hydro renewables.
In point 7 you mention high capital cost. But it is actually the cost of electricity for the life of the facility that is the most important parameter for comparisons (after reliability and availability). Renewables have much higher capital cost and cost of electricity than fossil fuels of nuclear power.
We should always keep in mind the enormous external benefit of low cost energy. Reliability of supply and low cost energy overrides all other factors, IMO.
Your last sentence:
Greater diversity is a better evolutionary pathway ie survival of the fittest not fattest.
is a value judgement. The statement, in this context, is meaningless, IMO.