As I noted in the article - there is plenty of room to quibble with the exact numbers from the report - both specific values and what was included/excluded. That said the fact of the subsidies, and therefore the need to address as part of the "expensive" discussion was the point.
Taking the average of your numbers (including some fairly low outliers, but not the IMF amounts) you have a blended number of $53/MWh, plus any direct subsidies. If we take the US as an example (a good one, since we have sharpened the "clean energy is too expensive" rhetoric better than anyone else), the offensively high subsidy that gave wind power an unfair advantage, the Production Tax Credit was $23/MWh. The Investment Credit impact on solar is even less than that per MWh for ground mount PV and even some rooftop installations now.
That isn't over-subsidization. The existing "too expensive subsidies" didn't even get the non-emitting sources to even in terms of taxpayer burden, using consevative estimates of the external costs. And that should be the discussion, agreeing on appropriate numbers for fossil fuel subsidies so that we can actually structure a market that can operate fairly and freely.