So says Wikipedia here, but you'll notice that the data isn't framed that way.
The presentation lumps nuclear and fossil together at $74 billion to make it appear that these "bad" sources received far more in subsidies than poor old renewable and conservation at $26 billion.
But fossil, renewable and energy efficiency subsidies combined totaled $50 billion from 1973 to 2003, matching the subsidies to nuclear over the period.
Perhaps even more interesting fossil received slightly less in subsidies than renewable over the period.
Overall, subsidies amounted to just $100 billion over 30 years, for an average of $3.3 billion per annum, a drop in the bucket compared to the trillions of dollars homeowners extracted from home equity, much of it blown on jet fuel for vacations.
Perhaps even more interesting fossil received slightly less in subsidies than renewable over the period.
Overall, subsidies amounted to just $100 billion over 30 years, for an average of $3.3 billion per annum, a drop in the bucket compared to the trillions of dollars homeowners extracted from home equity, much of it blown on jet fuel for vacations.
Here is the screen shot:
Something funny going on with the reference, though. Must be too controversial:
