An article in the New York Times last week about careers in solar energy revealed a shocking number – one that would certainly make me look elsewhere for job. As an investor, this particular number would also call into question the true growth of solar energy over the next few years.

The Times’ story cited the Solar Energy Industries Association as reporting that 3,400 companies in the solar energy sector employ only 25,000 to 35,000 workers, including installers, manufacturers, distributors and project developers and materials suppliers. Those numbers are expected to hit more 110,000 employees by 2016, according to the association.

Wait a minute: So seven years from now, this highly touted, save-the-world market will employ only 110,000 people?

From an investor’s perspective, I thought that number was absolutely puny. Let’s put that into perspective…

– Toyota employs 110,000 part-time workers.
– That’s the number of foreclosure notices sent to homeowners in California during the first quarter of this year.
– And in terms of size, Exxon, Rio Tinto and Wachovia each employ about 110,000 people.

So we’re supposed to be impressed, as investors, that the entire solar-energy industry will support 110,000 workers seven years from now?

Of course, those numbers from Solar Energy Industries Association could be wildly optimistic given a sea change in the politics of solar energy.

You see, that articles in the New York Times quotes Bob Cowen of Morris County, N.J., who opted for solar panels for both ecological and economic reasons. The tab for 49 solar panels for Mr. Cowen’s home came to $64,700. The state of New Jersey gave him a rebate of $42,500. That left Mr. Cowen with an out-of-pocket cost of $22,200.

Now the article didn’t say when Mr. Cowen installed his system, but recently the state of New Jersey moved to abolish its solar-energy rebates.

The state found itself with backlog of more than 700 applications for the rebates. This meant that people to wait months, even years, to get solar panels installed. Faced with an abundance of success, New Jersey regulators concluded it is time to wean solar providers from tax-paid subsidies and replace it with a complicated energy credits program.

New Jersey is not alone in reconsidering the benefits of subsidized solar energy. Maryland, Colorado, New York and several other states have either withdrawn their subsidy programs or are weighing their viability. Even San Francisco can’t seem to draw support for a solar subsidy.

The question that remains is: Would Mr. Cowan have paid the full $64,700 for his solar system? Probably not, since he probably would not have lived long enough to see the full ROI on it.

Likewise, I doubt that any of you would cough up $64,700 for a solar system that has a Rip Van Winkle ROI.

If that’s the case, then as an investor you shouldn’t put a penny into solar energy either.