If the trend continues for much longer, energy sources which require less labor will become more competitive (solar).
If you're a greenie - this is a good thing. Because oil has almost nothing going for it beside how good a source of energy it is for jet/rocket fuel.
The Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant generated 18,213,519 MWh in 2018 with 1400 full time employees [3]. That is an annualized output of of 1.5 megawatts per FTE.
During operation, the solar farm generates more than 6 times as much energy per FTE.
Of course you need storage too for solar to supply power after sundown. I looked at some recent utility scale battery project news, like the Moss Landing project currently under construction, but I couldn't find information about these projects adding any number of permanent jobs after construction. They may be too low maintenance.
Finally, you need to amortize the project construction labor over the life of the project to get an all-in labor intensity analysis. Diablo Canyon was unfortunately built long enough ago that contemporary reporting was pre-digital. From recent nuclear projects in the United States, it looks like nuclear projects don't have lower lifetime labor intensity (inclusive of construction) than solar + storage either.
The low labor intensity of large scale renewables is an under-appreciated point. Most of the labor is front-loaded into the construction phase, and doesn't amount to a lot per lifetime MWh. When you see breathless reports about how solar power is employing a boatload of people, they're talking about short term construction work. If solar power were at steady-state, as mature as coal or nuclear power, it wouldn't provide many jobs. The only reason its job numbers are so much higher than coal/nuclear is because coal/nuclear are stagnant/declining while solar is still in the rapid growth/construction phase.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_Sunlight_Solar_Farm
It's a workable idea unless you think the problem is that every reactor, no matter how large, has to deal with red tape and lawsuits from NIMBYs.
The cheapest possible energy gird currently available is to use wind as much as the weather allows it since it has currently the lowest cost per produced MWh, and natural gas for everything else. Solar is also starting to reach similar cost per MWh as natural gas when weather allows it.
We might see a renewal in nuclear if natural gas (and other fossil fuels) were taxed to the point of being economical unattractive. Without that I don't expect something that cost twice as much to compete in a market with a fungible commodity.