Originally Posted by rickair7777

As others said, TNSTAAFL.

But the airflow is there, it will create some drag some how, some way and in some cases it might be a net positive.

A turbine/propeller needs airflow (remember your RAT doesn't work on the taxi in). A race car's always going fast, so it can easily drive the alternator at all times in the mission profile. That won't work driving around town, or slow freeway rides.

Also a race car might benefit from weight savings of the belt/pulleys, or a different location for the alternator than bolted to the motor.

For most road vehicles though, the most efficient energy transfer to an accessory is going to be gears first, and then almost as good, belts. There's only a tiny bit of energy lost to friction heating and belt flexing. To use a fan you first have to apply the energy to the road via the drive train and THEN extract it back out of the airflow... that last part is not going to be very efficient at all unless your turbine is the size of a large house and runs at constant, optimized speed and power (like turbines at power plants). So you'd have to put a lot more energy into the road then you're going to get back out at the turbine.

It's possible if there was some airflow situation where you had to duct air for say cooling anyway that you wouldn't incur much additional penalty by sticking a turbine in flow. Maybe.

Originally Posted by sailingfun

I owned a BMW I3 for 3 years. It never lost more than 1% of charge sitting for a week at the airport. I just purchased a Tesla model Y. Parked it Sunday night with 253 miles of range. Today it has 251miles of range without being plugged in. Phantom drain on the Tesla’s is mostly caused by 3rd party apps that don’t let the car go into sleep mode or running sentry mode.

Originally Posted by Seneca Pilot

I was thinking more along the lines of existing brake cooling passages if they exist and regenerative. I suppose you could add logic to disconnect the generator from the propeller when the potentiometer is pressed to reduce to the minimum drag and reconnect when off the pedal. Just thinking. Probably too much drag and cost to try to add a couple of miles of additional range at best. The more likely result would probably be negative.

This engineer doesn't seem to think so though:

The American Wind Powered Car - Energy Alabama (alcse.org)

Originally Posted by fcoolaiddrinker

I seem to recall a few race car drivers back in the day putting small props on alternators and removing the belt and/or attaching it to the prop shaft.

Originally Posted by FXLAX

But a car has more surface area than just the roof. Every single square inch of outside surface, except windows, can be solar panels, right? I guess I’m missing something when people say solar works on a home which uses a lot more energy for a lot longer period of time, than a car yet a commensurate amount of solar panels on a car doesn’t work.

Originally Posted by FXLAX

Speaking of what others posted, someone posted that solar panels on cars doesn’t make sense. So explain to a layman (me) how it does make sense for using solar panels to charge your car at home but not a parked car? Maybe the solar panel technology isn’t moving forward as fast as battery technology?

Originally Posted by Seneca Pilot

Many people drive long trips as a function of their business/sales job.

I love EVs, I own one. I just don't use it for long trips. I don't eat every four hours when driving and I certainly don't take 30 minute pee breaks. If you would take a 300 mile range car (not in rain, snow, cold, or hot by the way) and attempt to drive it 290 miles to a charging station that could be full, blocked by a fueling truck, blocked by a store supply truck, or just down for maintenance (all have happened to me), and left with no range for an alternate you would be an idiot. The effective range of my 288 mile 2018 X P100D at 75 mph in rain is really about 220 miles max. I would have to stop every three hours to charge. I can do the 1200 mile trip in my Tahoe with two ten minute fuel stops and hit one drive through. The trip in the X is five to six hours longer.

Crack spreads are the only real variable in the fuel supply chain. When the price of oil spikes the refiner often eats some of the increase for a bit and get their margin squeezed, especially when demand is low. When the refiner sees high demand for their product whether oil rises or not the price is increased. If you take away eighty or ninety percent of the volume from their production and they are left to produce only lightly used fuel they will seek to make profits where they can. The only place to do that is the fuels still in demand. Battery density is not to the place where it is possible for aircraft, too heavy. Also not ready for long haul trucking, too heavy not enough range. Now add in that the only thing being refined is diesel for half that market and aviation fuels and the prices have to rise substantially for those fuels or the refiner just closes down and stops refining. Dramatic rises in fuel costs cause dramatic rises in ticket prices and food and other goods that move by long haul trucks. The Strawberries you buy in the store on Friday left California on a team truck the previous Monday and had to move 2600 miles in three days or they go bad. Can't do that with electric.

Economics is very complicated and there are often unintended and unforseen consequences when things change too quickly..

Originally Posted by FXLAX

Do we really believe that going completely electric will end in the oil companies in the US being able to keep drilling and fracking for own oil and selling it?

If we were truly about the environment, we would go all electric using “nucular” power. But that isn’t really the agenda.