Your neurosis, in the absence of any facts, does not trump an analysis by Bloomberg.
I already mentioned several facts. The first fact is that words are not actions. Just because someone says they did something, doesn't mean they actually did.
Second, the subsidies and distortions of the market are profound in the two countries they studied, the UK and Germany. Germany in particular has double the usual European mean electricity prices while still having times where they're paying others to get rid of their excess electricity. Third, think about it. Why did they choose two of the more heavily subsidized countries as their examples and then claim that the subsidies weren't really that relevant? Why not use an example where the distortions aren't so severe? They could have chosen examples that didn't have huge subsidies that would have to be filtered out. That's fact three.
To use a car analogy, this is like a couple of cars in a traditional car race, packed with all sorts of illegal performance-boosting technology and then someone deciding they should be allowed to keep their prizes because they would have won anyway. The obvious rebuttal here is that if the racers were such clear winners, then they wouldn't have needed to break the rules.
In a similar fashion, if renewable really is better than fossil fuels, then we should be seeing the replacement of fossil fuels with renewables in the markets where there aren't massive subsidies and other advantages. Instead, we don't. I guess that's fact four.