Other non-renewable energy sources are also subsidized when you factor in second order effects, like for example the breathing health issues caused by coal particulate emissions, or the global warming caused from CO2 from extracting and burning gas.

Nuclear is truly the most environmentally friendly.

Maybe except China? They've built 37 reactors in the last 10 years (with a total capacity of 20 GW) and have 30 more under construction with a total capacity of 31 GW [1]. It is possible this is all subsidized construction, like lots of things in China. How could you tell? Still, there's also a fairly good chance they found a way to make them economical, just like they build roads and bridges and buildings and railways at a much lower cost point than the West.

[1] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profil...

That turns out not to be true.

Here a short primer on the economics of nuclear reactors:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY

Intermittent renewables on the other hand require massive subsidies.