There is always some energy wasted in any creation of power.
Friction /gravity/resistance etc
I always wondered why a travelling cars airflow could not be harneseed.
It seems it's all about cost effectiveness of harnessing energies that are seen to be free.
A lot of carbon neutral energies are not truely carbon neutral,there are costs in carbon pollution/footprints in the manufacture of the very products/machinary that harnesses that "free" power.
Heat dissapates and in your basic model you would loose too much heat as it was recycled.
Linking "free" energies maybe a better bet,like Wind turbines and solar/photovoltaic cells and battery storage/national grid entry.
Cleaner energy production should be paid by the grid at 1 . 5 times per unit than it's equivalent fossil fuelled production.
To that end we should all have been lobbying for a national (govt backed) aided reroofing of every home/office/building that can site photovoltaic tiles and/or solar panels and / or windturbines.
The production costs would be reduced by a national scheme.
The Carbon print may peak temporarily in manufacture and installation,but long term we would have far less harmful output.
Like all things it takes a public push and govt willingness to go against the status quo of big business and contract sharing amongst the "club"
Perpetual motion is impossible in an atmosphere,even in a vacum like space,you still need to add power and you still loose power.
Great thinking on your part.
Look up air power in vehicles of the very near future,compressed air motors etc.
These ideas have been around for many many decades,but the oil companies and car manufaturers have always bought them off/out and closed the competition down.
Interesting enough for a star.