I've skimmed the report, but I don't have time for a point by point takedown. So this is going to be couched in generalities:

About the paper:

1. The actual results in the paper are far less conclusive and described with less certainty by the authors themselves than in the summary.

2. Yes, history cannot be denied. If you already have a history of precision metal engineering and relatively less in large scale silicon manufacture then your wind industry is going to do better out of state support than your solar, per euro of subsidy...

3. Solar is still developmentally behind wind - the race for now is still to find the best solution, more than engineer the best implementation. The study treats the technologies as being at the same stage and that rather automatically produces the results seen.

I don't know if this is Jerome's point, but my point from all this is that market based analysis gives you nice short term optimisations, but tells you nothing about achieving your desired goals.

If we want a solar industry, we need to invest and develop the skills. The market may indicate that it is more efficient to spend that money on oil companies, for short term gain, but in the long term that is a dead end.

Basically it comes down to whether or not you believe in generative industrial policy. Outside of the US, the countries that have the background supply chain to do solar have it because they put up industrial policies to grow their silicon/electronics industries, many of them basically from scratch. I don't think that's an accident...