This comes from the National Academy of Science
An understanding of the scale of deployment necessary for renewable resources to make a material contribution to U.S. electricity generation is critical to assessing the potential for renewable electricity generation. Large increases over current levels of manufacturing, employment, investment, and installation will be required for non-hydropower renewable resources to move from single-digit- to double-digit-percentage contributions to U.S. electricity generation. The Department of Energy’s study of 20 percent wind penetration discussed in Chapter 7 demonstrates the challenges and potential opportunities -- 100,000 wind turbines would have to be installed; $100 billion dollars’ worth of additional capital investments and transmission upgrades would be required; 140,000 jobs would have to be filled; and more than 800 million metric tons of CO2 emissions would be eliminated.
Imagine $100 billion in sales for the automotive (or trucking) industry. They would have to retool and produce something useful, something that would reduce US dependence on foreign oil rather than increase it.
Can you imagine hearing a politician complaining, "140,000 jobs would have to be filled"? No, a politician would be ecstatic to say, "140,000 jobs would be created."
What motivates the authors of this document to make it sound so difficult? The US government has thrown $100's of billions into financial institutions with little to show for the effort, but the National Academy of Science "experts" worry that it would take manufacturing, capital and labor to tackle global warming.
The USA always does things right, after it has tried everything else.