other more expensive electricity options require fuel that kills us when burned, but requires fewer workers.

which do you want?

http://en.openei.org/apps/TCDB/ Click on LCOE.

10 times 75,000 is 750,000 jobs. America needs 750,000 jobs. Wind power is a mere 9.7 cents per kWh. Low cost and huge job density. This is exceptional.

Of course they should promote this.

Employment is not proportionate.

Were we currently building a massive dam such as Hoover then employment in the dam segment of clean energy would be different than what it now is.

—–
eta: Wind and solar will likely employ a disproportional share of the employment market for the next 20-40 years. Then they will slow down to maintenance and replacement activities.

Coal and nuclear? Their numbers will continue to fall….

Reminds me of the story about Milton Friedman that goes something like this: he was once taken to see a massive government project somewhere in Asia in the 1960’s. Thousands of workers using shovels were building a canal. Friedman was puzzled. Why weren’t there any excavators or any mechanized earth-moving equipment? A government official explained that using shovels created more jobs. Friedman’s response: “Oh, I thought you were trying to build a canal. If it’s jobs you want, then you should give these workers spoons, not shovels.”