News
Tesla Model S vs. Toyota Mirai Comparison
With the introduction of the new hydrogen-powered Toyota Mirai (the name means “future” in Japanese), there has been a lot of media hype about vehicles that use hydrogen fuel cells as their power source. Toyota, Honda and a number of other automobile companies have announced plans to build cars based on fuel cell technology.
Fundamentally, a hydrogen fuel cell produces electricity via an electro-chemical reaction that drives an electric motor that creates the motive force for a car. The technology requires high-pressure storage of liquid hydrogen, a fuel cell to convert the H2 to electrons, a control system to deliver the resultant electricity to an electric motor and/or battery that in turn drives the wheels of the vehicle. It’s a workable, if somewhat complex system that produces zero emissions and water as a by-product.
In the media, there are three major claims that are being made about cars powered by hydrogen: (1) that H2 is a 21st century energy source and will ultimately become the preferred power source for automobiles; (2) that hydrogen-powered fuel cells represent a significant improvement in environmentally safe automotive fuel, and (3) that cars like the Toyota Mirai represent a major threat to battery electric vehicles (BEVs) like the Tesla Model S.
Are any or all of these claims true? We thought we’d take a look.
After going through the popular literature and government/academic reports, we decided that the best way to present the array of information collected was with an infographic, “Tesla Model S vs. Toyota Mirai: A Technology/Vehicle Comparison,” that examines four broad categories of concern:
- underlying technology that powers the vehicle
- the two vehicles themselves
- technology required for refueling the vehicle, and
- environmental impact
Tesla Model S vs. Toyota Mirai
Technology
EV technology has been around for 100 years. It represents a remarkably simple method for automotive power that is constrained solely by the capacity of the vehicle’s batteries. Fuel cells are evolving rapidly and provide more energy capacity than modern Li-Ion batteries, but they require liquid hydrogen to be stored on board the vehicle in pressurized tanks. The Tesla Model S has an energy capacity of either 60 kWh or 85 kWh while the Toyota Mirai produces 114 kWh. The overall energy efficiency (from an environmental viewpoint) of BEVs is dependent on the efficiency of the electric grid from which a BEV obtains its diet of electrons. The efficiency of hydrogen-powered cars is impacted by the process that extracts hydrogen from other sources and the method by which hydrogen is transported to a refueling station.
The winner: It’s close, but the simplicity of the BEV system gives the underlying technology of the Model S a slight edge.
The Vehicles
Both the Tesla Model S and the Toyota Mirai are expensive, but that’s the price of new technology. The Model S is a premium, high performance automobile in ever sense of the word. It is a visually beautiful car that conjures images of a Aston Martin or Jaguar and has been lauded as one of the best sedans in the world. It has won praise from virtually every automotive media source, and is one of the safest, roomiest cars on the planet. The Toyota Mirai has an eccentric look that gives it a boxy Prius-like feel. It appears to provide good, basic transportation, but it is not for those who want a bit more than good, basic transportation. Finally, the Tesla Model S is here today. By 2017, there will be about 160,000 Model S vehicles on the road. Toyota projects that only 3,000 Mirais will be in the field by the same date.
The winner: No contest! The Model S is far superior to the Mirai in virtually every respect except for range.
Fueling the Vehicle
In our view, one of the major benefits of BEVs is that you refuel them at home, overnight, while you’re sleeping, so that your Model S is “full” every morning. Unless you travel long distances on a regular basis, you will rarely need a Tesla Supercharger or any other refueling source away from home. That’s huge, and often get’s lost in the discussion of “range anxiety” that always seems to invade the thinking of those who don’t own a Model S. Although fuel cells are sexy, it seems odd to us that Toyota has returned to a 20th century fueling station paradigm. In essence, there is little difference between refueling a Mirai and refueling a Camry. Sure, the fuel is different, but you have to hunt for a specific refueling station as your Mirai slowly depletes its hydrogen. No charging at home—ever.
The winner: No contest! Refueling your vehicle at home is a convenience that represents 21st century thinking. Model S provides that convenience. Mirai does not.
Environmental Impact
Both the Model S and the Mirai are environmentally impressive. Both have zero emissions and relatively low “well-to-wheel” inefficiencies. In our view, the beauty of a BEV is that it becomes increasingly friendly to the environment as our electric grid infrastructure improves. There is no need to separately transport fuel to a refueling station (a requirement for a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle) eliminating both the cost and the environmental impact of secondary fuel transport.
The winner: It’s a toss up. Both cars are environmentally friendly and both will improve as the grid becomes cleaner and as hydrogen extraction processes become more efficient and cost effective.
As a young engineering student I was taught that when you consider alternative systems that both achieve the same result, always choose the less complex approach. That’s common sense, but it appears that when faced with the same choice, Toyota chose the more complex option. Possibly, their engineers or marketing people were driven by concern about range, but that’s simply not as big an issue as they think it is. BEVs represent simplicity, and in an increasingly complex world, that’s something that many consumers like.
Is the Mirai (or another similar H2 vehicle) a “Tesla Killer”? Not a chance!
Originally published on EVannex
News
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
SpaceX pushed Starship Flight 13 to Friday, blaming weather instead of the previous engine issues.
SpaceX called off Thursday’s launch attempt of Starship Flight 13, pushing the mission to Friday because of weather tied to Tropical Storm Bertha. The company confirmed the delay on X, noting “Now targeting Friday, July 24 for Starship’s thirteenth flight test, due to weather. A key objective for the flight test is to get clear imagery from the ground of Starship’s heatshield as it flies at a higher dynamic pressure during ascent, which won’t be possible with today’s weather conditions.”
This is the second delay for Flight 13 in two weeks. SpaceX first tried to launch the mission on July 16, but the countdown ended in an automated abort at T-0 when four of Super Heavy Booster 20’s 33 Raptor engines failed to ignite. Musk said at the time that two Raptors would need to be removed and replaced, as Teslarati reported. The company spent the following week destacking Ship 40 and Booster 20, swapping engines, and running leak checks before restacking the vehicle on Pad 2 Wednesday night, according to Spaceflight Now’s live coverage.
Unlike the engine problem, Thursday’s delay has nothing to do with the hardware. SpaceX wants clean footage of Starship’s heat shield captured from the ground as the vehicle flies through max dynamic pressure, something the storm’s cloud cover over South Texas would not allow. The company said visibility should improve for Friday’s attempt, with the same 90 minute window opening at 5:45 p.m. CT.
Flight 13 will be the second outing for the V3 versions of Starship and Super Heavy, following their debut on Flight 12 in May. The mission carries 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, the first time SpaceX has flown operational satellites rather than mass simulators on Starship. Six of those satellites are fitted with cameras to inspect the heat shield from a different angle during ascent, giving engineers a second data source beyond the ground imagery the weather is currently blocking.
Booster 20 will attempt a boostback burn and a splashdown landing burn in the Gulf of America, while Ship 40 follows a suborbital trajectory toward a landing in the Indian Ocean. The flight plan largely mirrors Flight 12, though the booster will run a more aggressive ascent burn after max Q this time, and the ship’s heat shield includes load sensing tiles meant to measure stress at the higher dynamic pressure SpaceX is targeting.
If Friday’s attempt succeeds, Flight 13 could be the last suborbital test in the program. SpaceX is already looking to push for an orbital flight on Flight 14.
Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA) endured one of its sharpest single-day declines in years on July 23, tumbling approximately 14.5 percent and closing near $320 after opening the session around $374. The drop erased more than $140 billion in market value amid heavy trading volume and left the shares at multi-week lows.
The sell-off followed the company’s second-quarter 2026 results, released the previous evening. Tesla reported record revenue of $28.2 billion, up 26 percent year over year, driven by a Q2-record 480,126 vehicle deliveries. Energy storage deployments also rose strongly.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Yet profitability disappointed sharply. Operating income fell 57 percent to $398 million, compressing the operating margin to just 1.4 percent. Non-GAAP earnings per share came in at $0.33, well below the roughly $0.53 analysts had expected. Free cash flow turned negative by $1.1 billion as capital expenditures surged 142 percent to $5.8 billion, largely tied to accelerated spending on artificial intelligence, robotics, and autonomous systems.
The losses on capex were expected, as Tesla said it would be spending heavily in 2026.
Investors also reacted to lingering uncertainty surrounding key product timelines. During the Earnings Call, management reiterated ambitions for Robotaxi deployment and the Optimus humanoid robot, but offered limited new concrete milestones, renewing questions about execution pace that have long accompanied Tesla’s ambitious roadmap.
The magnitude of the decline places it among Tesla’s more severe one-day percentage losses since its 2010 initial public offering. Historically, the two largest single-day drops (split-adjusted) remain September 8, 2020, when shares fell 21.1 percent amid broader market volatility and valuation concerns, and January 13, 2012, with a 19.3 percent plunge during the company’s early growth struggles.
Other notable declines include an 18.6 percent drop on March 16, 2020, at the onset of pandemic-related market turmoil. Thursday’s move ranks roughly ninth on the all-time list but stands out as the steepest in more than a year.
Despite the short-term pain, Tesla’s long-term trajectory has repeatedly recovered from such volatility. The latest results underscore both the strength of its core automotive and energy businesses and the near-term costs of heavy investment in next-generation technologies.
Elon Musk clapped back at France’s decision to withhold the approval for Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) Supervised system, projecting a clear and blunt message to French Transport Minister Phillippe Tabarot, after he publicly rejected the technology in its current form.
Tabarot outlines several concerns with Tesla Full Self-Driving in a detailed video statement, where he said, “The safety trade-offs are not yet sufficient to authorize it as it currently stands,” he said. He emphasized that FSD is not a true self-driving system and that the driver remains fully responsible.
Key issues Tabarot also brought up included allowing speeding when surrounding traffic exceeds limits and what he believes are insufficient guarantees of driver attention during complex urban maneuvers such as lane changes, intersections, and roundabouts.
Delaying the approval of FSD in France will cost lives
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 22, 2026
While acknowledging technological progress and France’s support for autonomous innovation, Tabarot stressed that deployment must prioritize road safety. He noted ongoing technical discussions with Tesla, the Netherlands, and other European partners, with further ecosystem meetings planned for the fall.
Musk’s rebuke highlights the human cost of regulatory caution. Tesla’s latest safety reports provide compelling data supporting accelerated adoption. In the most recent 12-month period, vehicles using FSD (Supervised) recorded one major collision per approximately 5.1 million miles driven, dramatically better than the U.S. national average of one crash per 698,000 miles.
Even Tesla vehicles driven manually with active safety features outperform the average by a wide margin. These figures come from billions of real-world miles of telemetry, showing FSD vehicles involved in far fewer incidents than both manual Teslas and the broader U.S. fleet.
Critics argue Tesla’s comparisons require careful scrutiny regarding reporting thresholds and fleet demographics, yet the data consistently positions FSD as a potential lifesaver. With road fatalities remaining a leading cause of death worldwide, Musk contends that proven safer technology should not face prolonged bureaucratic hurdles.
France’s measured approach reflects the broader European regulatory caution, which many, especially Musk, have been critical of in the past. However, as autonomous systems from Tesla and competitors like Waymo demonstrate superior safety in independent studies, pressure is mounting for harmonized approvals.
Musk’s warning carries the belief that every month of delay may equate to avoidable tragedies on European roads.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
Tesla stock tumbles after earnings, one of its sharpest single-day declines
