[bls]

What is your objective? If your objective is to help the environment, then this won't work; you are replacing coal/nuclear-generated electricity with gasoline-powered electricity, using a combination of of extremely inefficient mechanisms.

If your goal is to get free electricity by leaching off of cars, without regard to the environment, then it might work. But, there is a huge fixed cost to manufacture, transport, install, and test the machinery, and a non-negligible variable cost in maintaining the system.

[jkush]

Your latter comment would be one use. There are a lot of ways to recapture wasted energy (such as all the wind that cars generate when they go by). If this wind turbine can generate electricity from just a little wind, then highways are a great candidate!

[fauigerzigerk]

The wind cars generate is not causally related to fossile fuel. Solar driven cars would also cause wind. And even now, generating additional energy from burning the same amount of fossile fuel can hardly be bad for the environment.

[bls]

It isn't the same amount of fuel. If the car's engine is going to power something else besides the car, it is going to have to work harder.

Imagine the car is running in a vacuum and gets 30MPG. Now, add normal air resistance. It will not get 30MPG anymore. Now, add something else that further increases wind resistance. The car will get even fewer miles per gallon.

[fauigerzigerk]

That assumes that air resistance is indeed increased. I doubt that, but I'm not a physicist... Maybe it depends on what is next to the motorways now?

[bls]

Wind power works by creating wind resistance. In order for there to be _less_ air resistance with them installed, they would have to be replacing something that caused even more wind resistance. But, that seems unlikely.

[fauigerzigerk]

It puzzles me that some people deem it necessary to down-mod what is basically a question.