It leads to bigger "cost" questions, doesn't it?
The additional calories, in healthy food, to keep a man working over 10 hours is far more than 12 cents. And that food required fuel and water and fertilizer to grow.
For that matter, I don't think this is appropriate because you're not just adding that the man's job. It's pretty much the purpose of his life because he can't do much else. If you're using people's lives to create power, the slave owner would have to calculate the economics of their ENTIRE daily food budget, housing, etc to generate 100W for 16hr/day.
By the same token, the "green" economist might figure the entire carbon footprint of a man's life from cradle-to-grave and say, ok, we demand that he waste away 10% of his life on the cycle, not doing work at his job, not studying, not resting, not enjoying his family, so we can write up 10% of the carbon footprint of his life as the cost. As such the numbers are astronomically less ecological than simply burning the lbs of coal that it might take to produce the same amount of electricity he produced. Perverse? Yes, but there is some validity to the calculation.