Recharging the battery pack on board without using any fossil source

Batteris are very exPensive as it increaseqs in output values.
That can be corrected by two ways.
1. Mechanizcally or
2. By using small compact two stroke engineer which uses Reusable GAS!!!

"Reusable" gas? I'm going to throw that into the same bucket as the ideas to put wind turbines on your car, or to drive the car backwards to "recharge" the battery.

There are only two possible ways to recharge the battery on board the car:
-recapture wasted energy:
--unneeded kinetic energy: already done with regenerative braking
--other waste energy, such has heat, sound, etc: impractical

-carry another fuel source

Another fuel source could be all kinds of things, such as another battery, gasoline (like Karma and Volt), and more.

The general answer to this is that it's not very practical. I was going to list several different kinds of possible fuel sources and explain for each one why it's basically just more practical to just use a battery (like Tesla) or just use the fuel only (like an ICE, basically), but that would have made this already too long post even more too-longererererer.

I'll just say that adding another fuel source would make the car a lot more complicated, and less efficient. There is a benefit of having an extra fuel source if it is easy to refill (like gasoline, hydrogen, or natural gas). When your tank runs low, you can refill to 100% in minutes. The battery EV is still at a disadvantage there. However, it's still far batter and more practical to just work on batteries that are have even more capacity and a cheaper price.

Now, the story could completely change if there was a fuel source that was much cheaper than gas or grid electricity + the battery cost. Suppose the hydrogen equivalent of the energy you can get out of 1 gallon of gasoline was just $0.01 (not going to happen). Well then, it would make a lot of sense to have a hydrogen fuel source, but then, yuo would think they would just use hydrogen at the power plant too, and so our Tesla Model S would be just fine. True enough, if the Model S also had a hydrogen tank, and there were refill stations everywhere, then you would get added convenience, but in the future, EV batteries are going to become cheaper and have a higher capacity. In that case, having a "backup" fuel probably won't be that necessary, and it won't be practical given the added cost and complexity.

Now, with all of that said, why do the Volt and Karma exist then? Well they were both built with the idea that it would be nice to drive on electricity if we can, but with the assumption that there won't be any practical battery available that can carry a real car more than a few dozen miles. And by "practical battery available" I mean a battery that will be cost effective in a real consumer car and will be available within a few years.

Simply put, back when the Karma and Volt were first conceived, I think the engineers and designers assumed that a car such as the Model S could not have been made within the next 15 or 20 years or even longer. So they set about working on a stopgap solution.

However, Tesla tackled the original problem. That is, can you make a pure EV car with a battery that has enough capacity to carry a "real" car (practical size, shape, and performance) and can you make it so that it won't be so expensive that no one would buy it?

So they were smart, they had a goal, and they figured out how to get there. They're building expensive EV's, but they're still "real" cars, and it will help them develop the tech and eventually, they will be able to make (or sell the technology to make, or inspire the industry to make) a car that is low cost enough for the middle class and practical enough for everybody.

Fisker and GM's stopgap solutions was a dual-mode hybrid drivetrain. Tesla's "stopgap" solution is to build expensive early adopter cars and as they trend towards mass market, the technology gets better and cheaper!

And maybe no one outside of Tesla was thinking like that before, but now we all realize that it makes total sense. It's the way almost all of the technology everyday people use today has made it to the market. Cell phones, laptops, color TVs, flat screen TVs, digital media players, and on and on and on. First this things are very expensive and they're only for the super wealthy. Then these things become cheaper and they're within rich of wealthy folks and enthusiasts. Then these things get even cheaper and they're within reach of the mass market. Then they get even cheaper and are available to pretty much everyone. The really cool thing is, that generally, the more mass market (and cheaper) the tech becomes, the better it gets! Later consumers pay far less than the early adopters did, but the quality is even better than it ever was before! Now, tech doesn't always follow that pattern exactly, but it's a general case.

My point of all of that rambling was to say that it's far better to focus on improving the capacity/performance and cost of the EV battery than it is to try and come up with some sort of hybrid drivetrain or powertrain. The exception to that would be if some amazing, new breakthrough technology shows up (like some crazy new fuel that's super cheap, for instance).


There are only two possible ways to recharge the battery on board the car:
-recapture wasted energy:
--unneeded kinetic energy: already done with regenerative braking
--other waste energy, such has heat, sound, etc: impractical

-carry another fuel source

Three actually.

-Use energy source that is outside of the car
--Wireless charging
--Solar panels
--Old plug in to the recharger (really short range solution)
--Sails, if you have some wind and don't mind tacking against the wind in busy road in case of headwind

I think all of these fall into category "not practical".

Wireless charging could be useful in future though, and solar (when they get to point of 90% energy capture, and really really cheap price) could be useful in extending the range in sunny day. But not today.

tag missing. "-carry another fuel source" is part of the olanmills message.

When you wrote "it would be batter to..." I was in hopes you would continue with "use a bettery". But, no luck. ;(

As for the Karma, Fisker knew very well something like the S would be possible. In fact, he was hired on, as a famous designer, to design the S. But he turned in successively lousier designs, and was canned. He immediately popped up in Europe (I'm sotempted to use "Urp"!) at the head of a new company with a far better shell design. TM alleged he'd planned that all along, and stole drivetrain info, etc. Their suit failed, possibly because Fisker wasn't enough of an engineer to do a competent swipe -- and the Karma showed that unequivocally. Certainly nothing of value of the S tech made it into that car!

typo: "so tempted ..."

Sorry, I forgot about two things I knew about (external power sources and Fisker's origins).

Another good example of an external power source are the electric tracks for slot cars.

PS thanks for correcting my mistakes. haha