Modern safe advanced steam engines

Hi everyone

First time poster so please let me know if I mess up the posting process.

I'm curious what you'll think of this:
Mackwell
Mackwell Youtube channel

I'm working for a startup working to displace diesel with advanced steam power. We're learning from the successes and failures of the steam age along with the best of it that was never widely implemented, and improving on that in areas where we can.

Our boiler are safe with no explosion risk, no sparks and no smoke when running. We'll have a 35 hp engine for sale by the end of the year and the first one is under construction now.

The boiler's are entirely mechanical in operation, though an electric fan speeds the startup. The boiler is self regulating and stable. They're designed for a long service life and easy maintenance.

I'd be very interested to hear any of your thoughts.
thanks
Michael

Kia ora Michael!

These look awesome. I saw your exhibit at Fieldays last December and I think I still have the brochure I picked up. A few of your team stopped by the Biochar Network NZ booth and we had a good yarn.

When is that maiden engine coming out of the workshop? I'm going to be in the South Island in June and again in August...maybe I can stop in and geek out.

Hi Phil

That's great to hear! I'm not sure of the exact date but we'll be updating progress on the youtube channel and I'm hoping to have an ongoing conversation on here about it.

The most recent brochures were saying Q4 2023 so that's the best estimate at the moment.

Thanks
Michael

Myself I think the next era with steam and diesel is a combination of the two. The six stroke engine promises so much, about 40 percent more usable power than a traditional diesel engine since it cleans up emissions, gets an extra power stroke and eliminates parasitic loads. Couple it with a rocker designed set of pistons and the reduction in friction could glean probably 50 percent more-power out of the same amount of fuel.

I love steam: I got both a license for high pressure steam operation as well as my high pressure boiler welding certification, but I would have to see how “the new steam technology” works before I get to impressed. People have been gleaning people for money since the 1970,s on steam power generation, and it never meets the ability to be viable.

I am still convinced the six stroke engine will come into its own. It’s not going to be an easy engine to build, but there is a lot of power in a gallon of diesel fuel, and more in a pound of high pressure steam: to combine the two as Crowley proved, is impressive.

Hi Michael,
That is a cool engine. I only watched a couple of the videos. Are they sharing what makes it to so safe and so efficient yet? That is what I want to hear. They say it is more efficient and safe than historic steam engines, but they don't say how they accomplish this.

Where does this steam engine get its power?

I did not watch the video or go to the link.

I wonder if a rocket mass heater would work for making steam to run machines?  My concern and the reason I feel that steam went out of use was the massive amount of energy it took to make the steam.

Steve:
There are definitely areas where diesel engines powered by either fossil fuel or bio-diesel make a lot more sense and in those areas I wouldn't expect us to displace them.

The advantage of steam is the ability to burn solid fuel which can be bits of tree or a waste stream, or even waste bit's of tree in the form of forestry slash. We've had a lot of problems with that causing damage in recent floods. Of course the ecological sustainability of large scale pine plantation rotation is another issue!

Ideally the steam engine would run off an on site coppice yielding many useful products. Of course that isolates you from fuel shocks too!

Matt:
Some internal details are shown here: https://mackwell.co.nz/replacement-boilers/

Regarding safety the water tube boiler only has 2-3% of the water of an equivalent old style boiler. It less likely to fail than an old style boiler and if it did it would be safe to stand next to.

Regarding efficiency old steam was not as good as it could have been. A lot of design work was " we need more power, make it bigger!" rather than getting more work out of the same fuel. We're working from the material left behind by people who actually made that effort in the 1970s but didn't get it adopted because everyone had already decided that steam was going away so why bother.
We're fully burning the fuel same as a RMH, once it's up and running the exhaust is clear, like an RMH.

But why would you want to do this. If you want to use biomass then just use charcoal slurry in a diesel engine.

Michael Galloway wrote:Hi everyone

First time poster so please let me know if I mess up the posting process.

I'm curious what you'll think of this:
Mackwell
Mackwell Youtube channel

I'm working for a startup working to displace diesel with advanced steam power. We're learning from the successes and failures of the steam age along with the best of it that was never widely implemented, and improving on that in areas where we can.

Our boiler are safe with no explosion risk, no sparks and no smoke when running. We'll have a 35 hp engine for sale by the end of the year and the first one is under construction now.

The boiler's are entirely mechanical in operation, though an electric fan speeds the startup. The boiler is self regulating and stable. They're designed for a long service life and easy maintenance.

I'd be very interested to hear any of your thoughts.
thanks
Michael

Hi Michael,
I would be very interested in knowing what kind for efficiency your improved boiler is achieving. Kg of biomass consumed for amount of work type of numbers. I did not look at the whole catalogue of videos but could not find any mention of hard numbers. Love the simplicity and local resiliency elements though.
Cheers,  David Baillie

I have to say that I am deeply cautious about backyard steam boilers that produce useful amounts of energy. The history of steam is rife with disastrous explosions. And for the century following, the result was heavy regulation and very careful professional engineering.

Personally I think that building a homemade steam boiler is the equivalent of cooking up TNT in your basement. This is not stuff to be trifled with.

R John: I'm not familiar with running a diesel engine on charcoal slurry so I can't compare them in detail but I suspect there would be issues affecting the important seals in the cylinder. What I can say is that the steam engine was widespread enough for it's issues and weakness to be known, so we know where we're starting and where we're going.

David: old steamengines were normally 3 or 4% efficient at converting the energy in wood to useful crankshaft work, we're expecting to be over 10% based on what was achieved at the end of the steam age but not widely applied.
For some harder numbers how does 2.48 kg of wood per kWh or 9.9L of wood chip per kWh (250kg/m^3) and 5.8L of water per kWh (assuming no condensing which would add complication) sound?

Douglas: I totally agree with you on the dangers of high pressure steam technology. The boss is certified to issue steam certificates for heritage style steam locomotives and I'm a mechanical engineer with healthy fear of death from steam explosion.
Recently I got to operate the prototype boiler that we've used to prove the key differences with our technology; when I was operating it I commented that I felt much safer operating it than I would have an old style boiler. I could describe it as the pressurised tubes being contained in a mobile bunker, the outer shell is only containing exhaust gasses. I've also done the calculations proving that the worst case scenario of stuff blowing up (which it's designed not to do!) will only result in a lot of steam blowing out the funnel. We're not amateur's playing around, we're young professionals changing the world! (cynicism hasn't set in yet!).

Thanks all

Michael Galloway wrote:R John: I'm not familiar with running a diesel engine on charcoal slurry so I can't compare them in detail but I suspect there would be issues affecting the important seals in the cylinder. What I can say is that the steam engine was widespread enough for it's issues and weakness to be known, so we know where we're starting and where we're going.

David: old steamengines were normally 3 or 4% efficient at converting the energy in wood to useful crankshaft work, we're expecting to be over 10% based on what was achieved at the end of the steam age but not widely applied.
For some harder numbers how does 2.48 kg of wood per kWh or 9.9L of wood chip per kWh (250kg/m^3) and 5.8L of water per kWh (assuming no condensing which would add complication) sound?

Douglas: I totally agree with you on the dangers of high pressure steam technology. The boss is certified to issue steam certificates for heritage style steam locomotives and I'm a mechanical engineer with healthy fear of death from steam explosion.
Recently I got to operate the prototype boiler that we've used to prove the key differences with our technology; when I was operating it I commented that I felt much safer operating it than I would have an old style boiler. I could describe it as the pressurised tubes being contained in a mobile bunker, the outer shell is only containing exhaust gasses. I've also done the calculations proving that the worst case scenario of stuff blowing up (which it's designed not to do!) will only result in a lot of steam blowing out the funnel. We're not amateur's playing around, we're young professionals changing the world! (cynicism hasn't set in yet!).

Thanks all

There are no outstanding issues the charcoal slurry is a direct substitute for diesel and is a blended fuel using torrefied wood,rape seed oil and water. Used in an efficient diesel generator will produce approx 45% electrical efficiency. Compare that to my Bellis and Morcom steam engines at 15% electrical efficiency and there really is no comparison.

Anne Miller wrote:Where does this steam engine get its power?

I did not watch the video or go to the link.

I wonder if a rocket mass heater would work for making steam to run machines.  My concern and the reason I feel that steam went out of use was the massive amount of energy it took to make the steam.

When I asked this question, I did not know there was already a thread about an RMH steam engine, yea!

https://permies.com/t/217591/Rocket-Mass-Steam-Engine#1842227

I would still like to know from Michael where this steam engine gets its energy.

Michael Galloway wrote:R John: I'm not familiar with running a diesel engine on charcoal slurry so I can't compare them in detail but I suspect there would be issues affecting the important seals in the cylinder. What I can say is that the steam engine was widespread enough for it's issues and weakness to be known, so we know where we're starting and where we're going.

David: old steamengines were normally 3 or 4% efficient at converting the energy in wood to useful crankshaft work, we're expecting to be over 10% based on what was achieved at the end of the steam age but not widely applied.
For some harder numbers how does 2.48 kg of wood per kWh or 9.9L of wood chip per kWh (250kg/m^3) and 5.8L of water per kWh (assuming no condensing which would add complication) sound?

Douglas: I totally agree with you on the dangers of high pressure steam technology. The boss is certified to issue steam certificates for heritage style steam locomotives and I'm a mechanical engineer with healthy fear of death from steam explosion.
Recently I got to operate the prototype boiler that we've used to prove the key differences with our technology; when I was operating it I commented that I felt much safer operating it than I would have an old style boiler. I could describe it as the pressurised tubes being contained in a mobile bunker, the outer shell is only containing exhaust gasses. I've also done the calculations proving that the worst case scenario of stuff blowing up (which it's designed not to do!) will only result in a lot of steam blowing out the funnel. We're not amateur's playing around, we're young professionals changing the world! (cynicism hasn't set in yet!).

Thanks all

Hi Michael, so your kWHr number would be shaft power or electrical?

Anne, the energy source is biomass, mainly tree-derived but could also be crop residue (farm machinery that feeds itself).

Michael Galloway wrote:

The advantage of steam is the ability to burn solid fuel which can be bits of tree or a waste stream, or even waste bit's of tree in the form of forestry slash. We've had a lot of problems with that causing damage in recent floods. Of course the ecological sustainability of large scale pine plantation rotation is another issue!

Ideally the steam engine would run off an on site coppice yielding many useful products. Of course that isolates you from fuel shocks too!

R John, ok that's cool. I wonder what the land area to power a charcoal slurry diesel would be including the resources to power the fuel processing. The simplicity of chop up the wood and put it in the firebox appeals greatly to me. You could use a small steam generator to run an electric chain saw for that too.

David, take it as shaft power though electrical would be pretty close considering that an electrical generator can be over 95% efficient. In saying that generators in a non-ideal situation could be much less than that.

Michael Galloway wrote:R John, ok that's cool. I wonder what the land area to power a charcoal slurry diesel would be including the resources to power the fuel processing. The simplicity of chop up the wood and put it in the firebox appeals greatly to me. You could use a small steam generator to run an electric chain saw for that too.

David, take it as shaft power though electrical would be pretty close considering that an electrical generator can be over 95% efficient. In saying that generators in a non-ideal situation could be much less than that.

Well, for a steam boiler that is actually pretty good. It ends up being about twice the wood consumption of a raw wood gasifier using Fluidyne's engine tables (a NZ gasification treasure. The founder is now passed I believe) http://www.fluidynenz.gwprojects.org/ .
The guys at www.driveonwood.com are doing better than that still.
You do better compared to a charcoal updraft gasifier coming in at about 1/3rd less wood per kWHr based on my own results.you would have less fuelprep more fuel flexibility but a huge legislative burden and a much heavier machine. Plusses and minuses as in everything. I'll admit the gasification path seems more attainable but who knows.
Good luck on your endeavours
Cheers,  David Baillie

when it comes to thinking of sustainable transport
i think of two things:

1. boats
2. horses

boats its just something that keeps persistent through history,
horses run out of favor in moving cargo, but are still used
at tourist spots, and in poorer regions of the world where
people just can't yet afford to get addicted automobile industry;

personally i would be more interested in Stirling-like
engines and using ice and heat from the sun
as means of storing energy - also compost could be
used as "organic power source"

from Wiki:
"
In contrast to internal combustion engines, Stirling engines have the potential to use renewable heat sources more easily, and to be quieter and more reliable with lower maintenance. They are preferred for applications that value these unique advantages, particularly if the cost per unit energy generated is more important than the capital cost per unit power. On this basis, Stirling engines are cost-competitive up to about 100 kW.
"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine

in general i'm more in favor of smart, light, clever
solutions rather then bulky and heavy and heavy machinery,
i prefer gentle tech if i can help it;

but to be fair - i would like to know where do you
see the use for those kind of engines that you are
building?

What's the akshual NEED for it?

ps
your "propane batmobile" looks quite awesome
(but a bit noisy i guess...)

Michael Galloway wrote:R John, ok that's cool. I wonder what the land area to power a charcoal slurry diesel would be including the resources to power the fuel processing. The simplicity of chop up the wood and put it in the firebox appeals greatly to me. You could use a small steam generator to run an electric chain saw for that too.

You have to think of the whole process and that it all can be renewable. Harvest of biomass electric chainsaw and wood chipper. Drying of woodchip Thermal oil plate dryer turns woodchip into torrefied wood with biogas as by-product which can be used in diesel generator converted to gas. Thermal oil heated by solar and exhaust heat from gas fired diesel generator. Torrefied wood milled down to 20 micron in ball mill using electric. Rape seed oil cold pressed using electric then correct quantities of charcoal dust, water and rape seed oil emulsified in similar method to making peanut butter using electric to produce your diesel substitute. Given how efficient diesel is compared to steam probably 10% of the land area that steam requires and thats only due to the large area required to grow rape for the yield produced.

r john wrote:
You have to think of the whole process and that it all can be renewable. Harvest of biomass electric chainsaw and wood chipper. Drying of woodchip Thermal oil plate dryer turns woodchip into torrefied wood with biogas as by-product which can be used in diesel generator converted to gas. Thermal oil heated by solar and exhaust heat from gas fired diesel generator. Torrefied wood milled down to 20 micron in ball mill using electric. Rape seed oil cold pressed using electric then correct quantities of charcoal dust, water and rape seed oil emulsified in similar method to making peanut butter using electric to produce your diesel substitute. Given how efficient diesel is compared to steam probably 10% of the land area that steam requires and thats only due to the large area required to grow rape for the yield produced.

Sounds rather complicated compared to just burning scraps of wood. I've never heard of the stuff; how many places are selling it, and how much does it currently cost per gallon? How have you faired making it yourself? How many hours have you run an engine on it so far, and have you torn down the engine(s) to inspect them for wear, residue buildup, etc,? Do the solids settle over time? What prevents the rape seed oil from oxidizing and gumming up? Does the water content cause rust? That could be a good topic for a thread all on its own. I don't think I've seen one posted on that fuel yet.

Zaratustra

I definitely agree that there will be many situations where a steam engine won't be the best option but as a next step down the road from the heights of our current energy usage it seems like a good fit to me. The technology is relatively simple and so easy to manufacture compared to most other alternative energy sources. I'll admit that bad management could lead to reducing tree cover but the chance to secure future fuel for a low cost creates an incentive to plant more trees and make better usage existing waste streams.

In 100 years or more most of the world may be using horses instead of steam engines for most things; but for land based bulk cargo or passenger transport and running necessary industrial plant at the farm scale I think this would have a place as we saw 150 years ago.

R  John
Steam is more efficient that I suspect you think. A typical diesel converts about 30% of the energy in the fuel to shaft energy while we're expecting to achieve over 10%. Old steam engines were around 3-4% which would fit the relative land usage of 10% that you mentioned; and in very land restricted areas what you're describing may be better. But if labour is more of a restriction than land then a diverse coppice used for a combination of yields including lumber and fuel wood would be more labour efficient.

Like Jordan I would also propose that there may be unknown issues with this kind of diesel, and while there are certainly issues with steam we already have a fair idea what they are.

Thanks all for the conversation!

I never see horses ever making it again on any large scale. Even the Amish can not make it without contracting out the “English” and their tractors.

It just becomes circular. As a farm grows it needs more produce to produce, but to get that you need to do more work, which means more horses. They require feed with is acreage dependent and the more acreage the more property taxes that must get paid. That means more production which requires more horses that requires more land…

It is a death spiral.

I see battery operated tractors being more of the future then steam unfortunately.

Michael, I'm really glad you guys are working on this.  It bugs me that in my part of the world we have limited solar, limited wind and no microhydro due to flattish topography, extensive tree cover and lots of snow.  We do however have lots of biomass.  I'd love to be able to turn biomass into electricity.  Safe steam seems like it would be a perfect solution.

As for horses, since they worked for centuries, I'm guessing they could work again.  Surely not for 4000 acre monocrop farms but I suspect that if we are using horses for farming, we wouldn't be needing gigantic farms anyway.

I am not so sure the numbers work here...

One of the great things about energy is that the numbers can be crunched any which way, and if I did the math right, its not really working out.

Converting BTU's to KW's, and assuming a full cord of wood has an average of 24 million btu's per cord, and assuming a conservative permie house is going to use HALF as much as a normal house, at a 10% steam conversion ratio, AT BEST, a cord of wood would produce enough electricity for less than a month. That would mean 12 cords of wood per year just to make half as much as what a normal home would use for power. To sustainably harvest that, you would need a 50 acre woodlot...for just one house!

That is a pile of wood, four feet high, four feet wide, and some 200 feet long. Its a tractor trailer truckload of wood every year... AT BEST. I think it would be closer to double in real world figures...or 24 cords. Two tractor trailer loads of wood...or a pile 4 feet, by 4 feet, by 400 feet long. Or a 100 acre wood lot.

But I would love to be proven wrong going by the numbers...

Maybe.  I had a 750 sq ft cabin in MN on 10 acres that I heated with 10 cords a wood a year for 4 years.  Other that the land I cleared for the cabin, barn, and garden, I could not see where I had made a dent in the number of trees. Admittedly, the cleared area did provide firewood and 4 years is not a good sample period.

I'd hit up the local sawmill and buy a semi load of sawmill slabs.  I think I heard you can sustainably harvest a cord of wood per acre of forest so I could get 10 cords off my 10 acres if I really needed to.

I'm pretty sure the intent is to use waste wood, wood chips, agriculture debris and the like to fuel this.

The general forestry rule of thumb is:

Half a cord per acre per year sustainably.

You can cut 20 cord on 10 acres on a fifty acre wood lot and be fine, as long as you left that alone for a few years and cut everywhere else…

But based on an average, it’s 1/2 a cord per year

Mike Haasl wrote:I'd hit up the local sawmill and buy a semi load of sawmill slabs.  I think I heard you can sustainably harvest a cord of wood per acre of forest so I could get 10 cords off my 10 acres if I really needed to.

I'm pretty sure the intent is to use waste wood, wood chips, agriculture debris and the like to fuel this.

Living where I am they say 1/3rd of a cord per year for hardwood and twice that for softwood per acre.

I live in a forested region (some old growth, much natural second growth, some large-scale commercial tree farms). My province, British Columbia, has, for well over a century, had a worldwide reputation as a producer of lumber, plywood, strandboard, milled timbers, etc.

I strongly support getting more useful work out of sawmill waste, which has actually made great strides in British Columbia for 30 years. Also, I believe the efficient burning of wood for homestead space-heat is usually acceptable.

My question about modern, higher-efficiency steam power relates to the extent to which home- or farm-scale steam tech could be utilized, if wood dependent. Forests in much of the world have been over harvested. We need naturally regenerating, mixed-age, mixed-species (wild or semi-wild) forests as part of ecosystems & the biosphere. When a given forest is significantly harvested, regeneration can be unpredictable & slow. If slopes are involved, upper forest-soil layers can be devitalized, even eroded to varying extents. Modern forestry has frequently carried out restocking (tree planting) plus fertilization, which are costly. Even then, some very respected foresters here in BC say replanted forests are more "tree farms" than true forests, and that by time of a third cutting of such a tract, the trees are very far cry from the original natural forest.

Sure, some homesteaders have a private woodlot that they can harvest, but drawing too heavily could echo the challenges of modern commercial forestry. How would the average farmer or homesteader deal with this aspect... restocking & fertilizing? I do understand that biomass of various sorts could be burned to supply heat.

Anyhow, to envision where steam technology might fit into a green picture, we'd need to look at all the costs, labor, and other practicalities of obtaining fuel supply.

In a word: coppice. The advantages of having established root systems in place and just taking off the tops of suitable species are considerable: much improved regrowth rates means better yields over time, and little or no soil disturbance reduces erosion and fertility losses. Harvesting rods instead of logs also reduces handling and processing costs, since you don't have to do all the bucking, limbing, and splitting required for fuelwood.

Planting alley crops of coppice trees with pasture in between allows stacking of functions and makes for a complementary system where the trees provide fodder and  shelter for stock as well as the potential for other products, like fruit or nuts. Chestnut trees in the interior of Corsica have been managed by the locals for hundreds of years and still provide bountiful harvests of food and timber (albeit more in a random pollarding fashion as opposed to cutting down to stools). In a temperate climate with adequate rainfall, willow or poplar stands can produce 20 tons of dry matter per hectare annually. Compared to a commercial pine plantation in my neck of the woods, which is grown for 28 years and harvested at a rate of 300 tons DM/ha according to the published tables, that's double the output...and Pinus radiata grows like stink here.

It doesn't have to be wood, either. There are plenty of biomass crops that can produce at similar rates to coppiced hardwoods and they can be rotated in a mixed farming system: switchgrass, miscanthus, hemp. Bamboo is another possibility.

Phil Stevens wrote:In a word: coppice. The advantages of having established root systems in place and just taking off the tops of suitable species are considerable.

Agreed. And applicable, sometimes. But... "Most well-established broad-leaved trees respond to coppicing, most conifers do not" according to Ashridge Nurseries, UK, and to my personal knowledge & experience.

Yes, conifers are pretty much ruled out of the coppice game. One exception is coast redwood. That will resprout vigorously from a stump. Or a root. Or even where a branch has been in contact with the ground. It's also one of the easiest trees to propagate by cuttings and in favourable climates with decent soil it's a growth superstar.

Steve Zoma
I would certainly agree that it's not something that you would do if you have an easier form of energy like the grid. On the other hand if you're cutting your own wood to run it that would be one solid incentive to reduce usage.
Using the numbers I gave eariler: "2.48 kg of wood per kWh or 9.9L of wood chip per kWh (250kg/m^3) and 5.8L of water per kWh"

So I whipped out a spreadsheet and looked up some numbers

total energy consumption (current average lifestyle, total energy)
country name W        kWh/y L wood /y kg wood /y Cord m^3 Ton
Ukraine           3787.7 33180.3 328484.5 82287.0   90.7 328.48 82.29
UK                     4332.5 37952.7 375731.7 94122.7        103.7 375.73 94.12
NZ                     5547.2 48593.5 481075.4 120511.8 132.8 481.08 120.51
Australia           7446.8 65234.0 645816.3 161780.2 178.2 645.82 161.78
US                       9538.8 83559.9 827242.9 207228.5 228.3 827.24 207.23

household electricity (
country name kWa/y L wood /y kg wood /y Cord m^3 Ton
Ukraine               2902 28729.8   7197.0     7.9   28.73 7.20
UK                     4496 44510.4   11150.1   12.3 44.51 11.15
NZ                     8372 82882.8   20762.6   22.9 82.88 20.76
Australia           9502 94069.8   23565.0   26.0 94.07 23.56
US                   12154 120324.6 30141.9   33.2 120.32 30.14

household electricity without space heating, (take off 60%, EU fraction)
country name kWa/y L wood /y kg wood /y Cord m^3 Ton
Ukraine           1160.8 11491.9   2878.8     3.2   11.49 2.88
UK                   1798.4 17804.2   4460.0     4.9   17.80 4.46
NZ                   3348.8 33153.1   8305.0     9.2   33.15 8.31
Australia         3800.8 37627.9   9426.0     10.4 37.63 9.43
US                   4861.6 48129.8   12056.8   13.3 48.13 12.06

You're quite right that replacing our current lifestyle with wood fired steam is totally impractical, but that's not the goal.
And we're getting a lot of heat that would be wasted if we're heating with electricity. Using the waste heat from the exhaust steam to heat the space and cut's it down substantially.

John you talked about heating your cabin with 10 cords of wood a year. I'd hazard a guess that you'd be using less electricity than average so that puts this into the right range for you.

It looks like powering the essentials and heating with the waste heat would be well within the capabilities of an off grid household with a few acres of trees. Even just getting the incoming air up to "cool room" from below freezing would be a massive improvement and reduce other heat needs. A lot more can be done of course with insulation, hot water heating, removing un-needed appliances, absorption refrigeration from the waste heat.

You could even run it off the same steam tractor you use for mobile work. Plug it into the house once you're back from whatever you needed to do elsewhere.

Returning the ash to complete the nutrient cycle would be needed too of course.

Refferences:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_consumption
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37433
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Energy_consumption_in_households

Joel I can only echo what Paul said. I'd agree that causing even more deforestation is the LAST thing we would want. Rather making use waste and planting more trees close to where they're used to give individuals greater energy independence.

Michael, Thank you for posting this and I wish you all every success! I've had fun browsing the videos on the youtube channel.
I could see the obvious advantages of having instant torque at 0 rpm in an agricultural context, this is one of the main advantages of electric powered vehicles also of course. The price seems to me to be competitive (a bit over £30k plus taxes?) to diesel tractors. What the price would turn out to be in working form is one important factor, also the ability to have the range of farming attachments, and low ground pressure. It's not clear to me how it will compare in finished form and it might be worth some clarification on this.
The advantage of being able to run off waste products from the farm is invaluable of course and difficult to put a price on, due to every circumstance being different (wheat straw, corn stalks...as well as purpose grown fuel?) . It is also interesting to think of the engine being a combined heat and power unit and how that might give advantages in an off grid location (including making the tea!)

And we've got another video out: https://youtu.be/_Wha26WjM14

Thanks for sharing Michael,
I'm interested to know whether the engine would be both a tractor and a generator, or whether you'd need a completely different set up for each application. I'm thinking, using it during the day to do agricultural work and then plug it in at night for domestic (or more farming processing) power.
Those images of felled trees after the cyclone illustrated perfectly the opportunities for 'free' fuel. Although as we know processing it for use takes a lot of human energy too...(thinks) needing a mobile wood processing sawmill?