Connect with us

News

Tesla Model S vs. Toyota Mirai Comparison

Published

on

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.

Advertisement

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

Tesla Model S vs. Toyota Mirai Infographic

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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!

 

Advertisement

Originally published on EVannex

Advertisement
Comments

News

IM Motors co-CEO apologizes to Tesla China over FUD comments

Liu said later investigations showed the accident was not caused by a brake failure on the Tesla’s part, contrary to his initial comments.

Published

on

Credit: Grok Imagine

Liu Tao, co-CEO of IM Motors, has publicly apologized to Tesla China for comments he made in 2022 suggesting a Tesla vehicle was defective following a fatal traffic accident in Chaozhou, China. 

Liu said later investigations showed the accident was not caused by a brake failure on the Tesla’s part, contrary to his initial comments.

IM Motors co-CEO issues apology

Liu Tao posted a statement addressing remarks he made following a serious traffic accident in Chaozhou, Guangdong province, in November 2022, as noted in a Sina News report. Liu stated that based on limited public information at the time, he published a Weibo post suggesting a safety issue with the Tesla involved in the crash. The executive clarified that his initial comments were incorrect.

“On November 17, 2022, based on limited publicly available information, I posted a Weibo post regarding a major traffic accident that occurred in Chaozhou, suggesting that the Tesla product involved in the accident posed a safety hazard. Four hours later, I deleted the post. In May 2023, according to the traffic police’s accident liability determination and relevant forensic opinions, the Chaozhou accident was not caused by Tesla brake failure. 

Advertisement

“The aforementioned findings and opinions regarding the investigation conclusions of the Chaozhou accident corrected the erroneous statements I made in my previous Weibo post, and I hereby clarify and correct them. I apologize for the negative impact my inappropriate remarks made before the facts were ascertained, which caused Tesla,” Liu said. 

Investigation and court findings

The Chaozhou accident occurred in Raoping County in November 2022 and resulted in two deaths and three injuries. Video footage circulated online at the time showed a Tesla vehicle accelerating at high speed and colliding with multiple motorcycles and bicycles. Reports indicated the vehicle reached a speed of 198 kilometers per hour.

The incident drew widespread attention as the parties involved provided conflicting accounts and investigation details were released gradually. Media reports in early 2023 said investigation results had been completed, though the vehicle owner requested a re-investigation, delaying the issuance of a final liability determination.

The case resurfaced later in 2023 following a defamation lawsuit filed by Tesla China against a media outlet. According to a court judgment cited by Shanghai Securities News, forensic analysis determined that the fatal accident was unrelated to any malfunction on the Tesla’s braking or steering systems. The court also ruled that the media outlet must publish an apology, address the negative impact on Tesla China’s reputation, and pay a penalty of 30,000 yuan.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

SpaceX is exploring a “Starlink Phone” for direct-to-device internet services: report

The update was reportedly shared to Reuters by people familiar with the matter. 

Published

on

(Credit: T-Mobile)

SpaceX is reportedly exploring new products tied to Starlink, including a potential Starlink-branded phone. 

The update was reportedly shared to Reuters by people familiar with the matter. 

A possible Starlink Phone

As per Reuters’ sources, SpaceX has reportedly discussed building a mobile device designed to connect directly to the Starlink satellite constellation. Details about the potential device and its possible release are still unclear, however.

SpaceX has dabbled with mobile solutions in the past. The company has partnered with T-Mobile to provide Starlink connectivity to existing smartphones. And last year, SpaceX initiated a $19.6 billion purchase of satellite spectrum from EchoStar.

Advertisement

Elon Musk did acknowledge the idea of a potential mobile device recently on X, writing that a Starlink phone is “not out of the question at some point.” Unlike conventional smartphones, however, Musk described a device that is “optimized purely for running max performance/watt neural nets.” 

Starlink and SpaceX’s revenue

Starlink has become SpaceX’s dominant commercial business. Reuters’ sources claimed that the private space company generated roughly $15–$16 billion in revenue last year, with about $8 billion in profit. Starlink is estimated to have accounted for 50% to 80% of SpaceX’s total revenue last year.

SpaceX now operates more than 9,500 Starlink satellites and serves over 9 million users worldwide. About 650 satellites are already dedicated to SpaceX’s direct-to-device initiative, which aims to eventually provide full cellular coverage globally.

Future expansion of Starlink’s mobile capabilities depends heavily on Starship, which is designed to launch larger batches of upgraded Starlink satellites. Musk has stated that each Starship launch carrying Starlink satellites could increase network capacity by “more than 20 times.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Elon Musk

FCC accepts SpaceX filing for 1 million orbital data center plan

The move formally places SpaceX’s “Orbital Data Center” concept into the FCC’s review process.

Published

on

Credit: SpaceX/X

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has accepted SpaceX’s filing for a new non-geostationary orbit (NGSO) satellite system of up to one million spacecraft and has opened the proposal for public comment. 

The move formally places SpaceX’s “Orbital Data Center” concept into the FCC’s review process, marking the first regulatory step for the ambitious space-based computing network.

FCC opens SpaceX’s proposal for comment

In a public notice, the FCC’s Space Bureau stated that it is accepting SpaceX’s application to deploy a new non-geostationary satellite system known as the “SpaceX Orbital Data Center system.” As per the filing, the system would consist of “up to one million satellites” operating at altitudes between 500 and 2,000 kilometers, using optical inter-satellite links for data transmission.

The FCC notice described the proposal as a long-term effort. SpaceX wrote that the system would represent the “first step towards becoming a Kardashev II-level civilization – one that can harness the Sun’s full power.” The satellites would rely heavily on high-bandwidth optical links and conduct telemetry, tracking, and command operations, with traffic routed through space-based laser networks before being sent to authorized ground stations.

Advertisement

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr highlighted the filing in a post on X, noting that the Commission is now seeking public comment on SpaceX’s proposal. Interested parties have until early March to submit comments.

What SpaceX is proposing to build

As per the FCC’s release, SpaceX’s orbital data center system would operate alongside its existing and planned Starlink constellations. The FCC notice noted that the proposed satellites may connect not only with others in the new system, but also with satellites in SpaceX’s first- and second-generation Starlink networks.

The filing also outlined several waiver requests, including exemptions from certain NGSO milestone and surety bond requirements, as well as flexibility in how orbital planes and communication beams are disclosed, as noted in a Benzinga report. SpaceX noted that these waivers are necessary to support the scale and architecture of the proposed system.

As noted in coverage of the filing, the proposal does not represent an immediate deployment plan, but rather a framework for future space-based computing infrastructure. SpaceX has discussed the idea of moving energy-intensive computing, such as AI workloads, into orbit, where continuous solar power and large physical scale could reduce constraints faced on Earth.

Advertisement
Continue Reading