Imagine, if you dare, a cylinder soaring 1,000 feet high bobbing on the Pacific Ocean up to 20 miles off the California coast.

Picture massive blades atop the cylinder.

Yes, it is a floating wind turbine.

And it will be tethered by a cable to the Continental Shelf some 4,000 feet below the surface.

It will produce up to 10 megawatts of electricity.

Electricity that will travel up to 20 miles via large, high-voltage undersea cables.

Now multiple that by 2,500.

That’s right. 

We’re talking 2,500 floating wind turbines.

What could possibly go wrong?

Be careful what you say.

Call it a financial and environmental catastrophe of epic proportions waiting to happen, and Gov. Gavin Newsom will slam you as a climate denier.

The off-shore wind turbines are part of the climate change action plan Newsom and others running the state have embraced.

Yet most people have no idea what the chosen solutions will mean.

Place 2,500 such wind turbines in the Pacific Ocean and assume it won’t raise havoc with the environment and even energy security in ways one doesn’t dare imagine and you have to be blinded by climate change self-righteousness or just plain smug.

Drone attacks and cyberattacks on the electric grid are becoming a growing concern by the day.

And we’re not talking just aerial drones. 

There are now underwater drones with the capability of delivering explosive loads to targets.

Currently, the electric grid is on terra firma.

And even when infrastructure is in the middle of nowhere, they are not nearly as vulnerable as 2,500 floating wind turbines 20 miles offshore in a vast ocean.

A spot, by the way, that is clearly on the outer edge of any ability to secure and protect them from terrorists or foreign attack.

There is redundancy — although perhaps not enough — within land-based transmission grids. 

As such, operators can work around a failed line.

Try to do that in bringing electricity generated 20 miles offshore to keep the lights on in California.

And if you think the likes of PG&E do a less than stellar job at staying on top of things that disrupt lines, stop the flow of power, and trigger a disaster ask yourself how for-profit concerns will do so in Neptune’s world.

This is risky business, and not just from security and environmental concerns.

After seeing another Sacramento inspired climate change project — the high speed rail system — redefine the concept of runaway price overruns, imagine what can happen with anchoring   bobbing 1,000-foot high wind turbines attached by cable  to the ocean floor almost a mile below the surface.

And don’t get lulled into indifference from the state’s siren song that private sector investors will trip over each other for the chance to bankroll the endeavor.

That’s what Californians were promised would happen after they approved the initial $9 billion bond to build a high speed rail system from San Francisco to Los Angeles.

The price tag for that connection is now $100 billion with $11 billion plus being spent so far for that segment’s backbone in the San Joaquin Valley.

Not a penny of private sector funds have been invested nor is anyone lining up at the proverbial door.

Instead, the state has come up with creative ways to squeeze consumers at the gas pumps via greenhouse gas emission fees collapsed into the price of a gallon of fuel to keep funds flowing to high speed rail that is burning through millions of dollars daily.

The odds are more than overwhelming the same thing will happen with floating wind turbines.

Floating wind turbines, by the way, that are manufactured only in China and Europe.

By contrast, the wind turbines dotting California — think Tehachapi Pass, Altamont Pass, and Pacheco Pass pose less risk all around.

The impacts on birds — including endangered raptors — have been blunted over the years due to better design and deployment of technology.

Granted, no one may want to see wind turbines pop up in places such as along the Big Sur coast, but a lot of thought doesn’t seem to have been given from the aspects of cost, dependability, security, ease of maintenance, and environmental impacts whether that makes more sense than using the open ocean.

Off-shore wind power — especially that way off shore — won’t excite very many but hardcore environmentalists.

That is important to note as wind turbines much closer to shore clearly come with less overall risks.

But out of sight is out of mind.

After all, if you’re going to avoid triggering a massive revolt among Californians, you need to go with the riskier option of up to 20 miles out to sea.

Many of the decisions the climate change cabal are pushing with the subtlety of the Tasmanian Devil mainlining Red Bull, are based on two absolutes. 

One is climate change absolutely will destroy life as we know it in 20 or 40 years although the doomsday goal posts are always being moved further into the future when the much rumored disaster date comes and goes..

The other is manmade greenhouse gas emissions must be zeroed out.

In doing so, it does more than just place all of the eggs in a straining basket.

It also treats effective energy options that involve greenhouse gases but actually improve the overall quality of the environment just as bad a smoke belching diesel truck.

A prime example is right here in Manteca.

Human wastewater can’t be treated without creating methane gas.

Methane gas that is burned off into the atmosphere.

Manteca is one of a handful of cities west of the Rockies that invested in technology that takes the methane gas and combines it with food waste to create compressed gas that powers city solid waste trucks.

State officials were tripping over each other a few years lauding Manteca’s efforts.

Now the state has issued a zero emission order for all city vehicles.

Unless Manteca is granted an exception it will have to switch from CNG powered solid water trucks and transit buses to electric models.

Forget the fact they are now emitting a small fraction of what other fossil fueled vehicles are when it comes to greenhouse gases.

And then there is the detail what to do with the wastewater treatment methane byproduct.

Unless Newsom and his hardcore greenies in arms are planning to issue a mandate by 2035 that no Californian can do the No. 2, methane gas will continue to be burned off to release greenhouse emissions from wastewater treatment plants.

This column is the opinion of editor, Dennis Wyatt, and does not necessarily represent the opinions of The Bulletin or 209 Multimedia. He can be reached at dwyatt@mantecabulletin.com