They seem to be saying that Iowa is closing their one nuclear plant because wind farms are cheaper. People primarily care about price, and don't want their government providing massive subsidies.

If price is what's causing them to turn away from nuclear, then they probably turned to cheaper oil. And they seem fine providing massive subsidies to further things like the Dakota Access pipeline.

I agree there is an implicit subsidy for pipelines, in the sense that if the pipeline operators screw up and poison everyone who lives nearby, society will probably do something to clean that up. That's similar to any useful but dangerous facility that we allow to be built and operated. (Like, for instance, a nuclear power plant...) Pipelines are still superior to other petroleum transport modes such as trains, in terms of both cost and safety. Most taxpayers can think of other projects that deserve the epithet "massive subsidy" more than a pipeline funded entirely by its owners.

I don't see the connection to wind generation, however. Did some Iowa landowner finance a wind farm with a DAPL eminent-domain payment? That seems tenuous.