WH wants 72 % cut to clean energy research

[Farmer77]

5 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

So then... the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy  - the one who Trump is proposing to cut the budget of - what has it actually accomplished ? Does it actually DO anything in meaningful terms, or is it just a beurocratic boondoggle ? I'm thinking of the Rural Electrification Administration, which accomplished 90% of its mission in 1939 (four years after its creation), but was not disbanded until the 1990's ?
 

 

This is a pretty comprehensive breakdown 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

 

[RoofGardener]

Just now, Farmer77 said:

This is a pretty comprehensive breakdown 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Amusingly, the page won't load for me, due to bloated and unwanted 'advertising' baggage ! (a cloudnet affiliate program). This is unwanted, unsolicited, unhelpful, and self-serving. Perhaps a perfect metaphor for the Office of Energy Efficiency itself  perhaps ?

[Farmer77]

Just now, RoofGardener said:

Amusingly, the page won't load for me, due to bloated and unwanted 'advertising' baggage ! (a cloudnet affiliate program). This is unwanted, unsolicited, unhelpful, and self-serving. Perhaps a perfect metaphor for the Office of Energy Efficiency itself  perhaps ?

Ha you got me...I read unwanted, unsolicited, unhelpful and self serving and though for sure you were gonna say just like me! 

[RoofGardener]

1 minute ago, Farmer77 said:

Ha you got me...I read unwanted, unsolicited, unhelpful and self serving and though for sure you were gonna say just like me! 

I would never suggest such a base canard, Farmer77.

Ooooh... the web page finally loaded. Right.. OK.. apparantly, the administration is...

" ... concerned with developing cleaner burning fuels, wind, hydro energy and other renewable energy sources, in order to break the dependency the U.S. has on foreign oil and other non-renewable resources. ..."

Excellent.  Umm.... with its $2 billion budget, did it actually succeed in any of those goals ?

[bmk1245]

On 2/1/2018 at 8:48 PM, aztek said:

another right move,  he is absolutely correct , again, with low prices for china made panels it would never be profitable to make our own,  you can expect solar panel factories in usa open up, create jobs, and bring up the economy

If not cheap electronics from east, you wouldn't be posting here, cause you couldn't afford PC, nor laptop, nor mob.phone. So, how solar panels are different?

[rashore]

For folks that are interested, here’s the list of the national labs the department runs. They do a variety of government research and programs: https://energy.gov/national-laboratories

 

[RoofGardener]

1 hour ago, rashore said:

For folks that are interested, here’s the list of the national labs the department runs. They do a variety of government research and programs: https://energy.gov/national-laboratories

I think you'll find that they are run by the Department of Energy in general, and NOT the Office of Energy Conservation etc etc .. or whatever it is called ?

[Blizno]

On 2/1/2018 at 0:32 PM, aztek said:

cut wasteful spending, good idea, let private companies who are in clean energy business  pay for their research themselves,  we do not need another Solyndra, 80B out of the window, nothing to show for.  complete scam, thanks obama. trump is absolutely correct, again

Trump is correct, again? When has Trump ever been correct, about anything? That serial liar is selling the nation out from under our feet.

"...let private companies who are in clean energy business  pay for their research themselves..." So, you're not aware that US taxpayers are pouring tax money into the pockets of fossil fuel companies at a staggering rate. Much, much, much more than has ever gone to renewable energy companies. Look it up. Those are the same fossil fuel companies that post record profits year after year and do not need, and certainly don't deserve, taxpayer subsidies.

 

[GlitterRose]

Is anyone really surprised?

He said he was gonna drain the swamp, and he put Rex Tillerson in there. 

Lol. 

It's a pool party at Caligula's. 

[aztek]

Just now, bmk1245 said:

If not cheap electronics from east, you wouldn't be posting here, cause you couldn't afford PC, nor laptop, nor mob.phone. So, how solar panels are different?

lmao, you do not have a slightest clue what i can and can not afford, come back when you have a valid point.

[aztek]

Just now, Blizno said:

Trump is correct, again? When has Trump ever been correct, about anything? That serial liar is selling the nation out from under our feet.

"...let private companies who are in clean energy business  pay for their research themselves..." So, you're not aware that US taxpayers are pouring tax money into the pockets of fossil fuel companies at a staggering rate. Much, much, much more than has ever gone to renewable energy companies. Look it up. Those are the same fossil fuel companies that post record profits year after year and do not need, and certainly don't deserve, taxpayer subsidies.

 

lol, yes i'm aware of that,  i see your entire argument is 2 wrongs make 1 right, no it does not work like that. 

[+OverSword]

On 2/3/2018 at 6:07 AM, bmk1245 said:

If not cheap electronics from east, you wouldn't be posting here, cause you couldn't afford PC, nor laptop, nor mob.phone. So, how solar panels are different?

You are absolutely correct.  By adding a 30% tax on Chinese made solar panels Trump has ensured that any American that want to buy solar panels now have to pay more than people in the rest of the world.  I would now go on a rant about how we  need to change over to a little regulated free market without government subsidizing private industry or taxing cheap imported goods but at the rate we are becoming socialist and protectionist I would hate to have my internet posts used against me in some future kangaroo court to convict of thought crime.

JK kind of.

Edited February 5, 2018 by OverSword

[aztek]

lol  we are talking about 30%, not 300%, i have no doubt anyone who owns home and has tens of thousands for panels will find extra 30% price bump quite manageable . the sky is not falling.  this is not a margin that will price out anything.

[RoofGardener]

Hmm... I don't think anyone is addressing the key issue ? 

Trump has proposed to cut the budget of the Office of Renewable Thingies ... but is that cut justifiable ? The Office has had a budget of almost $2 Billion per year for the last few years. (and has more recently requested an annual budget of almost $3 Billion). Has it actually ACCOMPLISHED anything worthy of that budget ? 

[toast]

On 3.2.2018 at 0:30 AM, DarkHunter said:

Solar is just not effective and never will be,

How exactly did you calculated its effectiveness and where exactly did you set the break-even point for your home-made calculation? The effectiveness of solar power is given by simple math, means, by the ROI of that technology. If there would not be a ROI, there would not be a related industry and no use of that technology.

Quote

.... besides from the extensive mining for rare earth elements which will create it's own environmental concerns it just doesn't generate enough energy.

Thats one of the reasons why we need to fund R&D for solar power technologies. If the US will cut their R&D budget and other nations will not, the associated patents will be in the hands of others, forcing US customers to pay license fees.

Quote

In Germany 43.2% of the electricity still comes from coal, 8.6% from natural gas, 14.8% from nuclear, 14.4% from wind, 6.9% from solar, 3.5% from hydro, and 8.7% from biomass.  

These figures are outdated, the actual values are: 35,8%/coal, 6,5%/gas, 13,4%/nuclear, 27,4%/wind, 2%/solar, 5%/hydro, 9%/biomass and <1% oil.  So the actual percentage by renewable energies in Germany is 43,8% in 2018 compared to 33,05%/2015, 33,7%/2016 and 38,3% in 2017. The rise is giving a good picture on the pace, which is scheduled to reach 80% in 2050 with the target of 100% later (or earlier) on.

Source

Quote

The problem with your solar/hyrdo/wind trifecta is that there are only so many rivers suitable for hydro power and more then likely close to if not all are already producing hydro power.

There is no problem. The amount of hydro power isnt limited to our own rivers. We will raise that amount by purchasing it from Norway, wich is the World`s largest producer of hydro power. The project is called NordLink and scheduled to operate from 2019 on. With that new grid, Germany`s energy production surplus, collected at nights by wind for example, will be stored in water reservoirs in Norway.

Quote

That leaves solar and wind,

You are wrong, see above.

Quote

... biomass as an energy source is a complete joke and generally produces more CO2 per kWh of energy then coal does along with doing extensive damage to the boilers it's burned in. 

The reason for that your boiler gets damaged by biogas might be caused by US lowtech products. If you want me to give you a supplier list for the real stuff pls let me know.

Quote

From doing a bit of research I found out that Germany has about the same solar potential as Alaska with an average 3.08 sun hours/day or to put it another way on average for 3.08 hours a day a square meter of land in germany will receive 1 kw of energy in perfect conditions.  There is a good reason why solar energy expansion dropped off suddenly in 2012 in Germany.  

You again provided incorrect figures as in between 2007 and 2017 the solar percentage raised constantly. The break you talked about was caused by a governmental funding cut in 2012, causing a decrease of purchase of German made solar power collectors.

Quote

Wind is also going to be problematic for Germany, basically the only really still viable wind sites are in the German Bight and there is only a finite amount of space and you can only cram so many wind turbines into a location. 

Also here you are wrong again. We have ca. 950 offshore units and ca. 27.300 onshore units yet which are running very well and thousands more are planned.

Quote

To continue to meet energy needs long term Germany, like every other country, will have to go nuclear.

The last remaining nuclear power plants here will be shut-off by 2020 and you can be quite sure that we will have the needed amount of energy that our economy is calling for.

Edited February 6, 2018 by toast

[bmk1245]

On 2/5/2018 at 4:48 PM, aztek said:

lmao, you do not have a slightest clue what i can and can not afford, come back when you have a valid point.

Ah, excuse me, Sir.

Just out of curiosity, how often you can afford new PC/laptop (say, economic class)?

[aztek]

Just now, bmk1245 said:

Ah, excuse me, Sir.

Just out of curiosity, how often you can afford new PC/laptop (say, economic class)?

i have 3 laptops, 2 ipads, mini and full size, and 1 android tablet, we buy a new laptop or a tablet on average  every two years. or if one brakes we replace it. 2 laptops are mine, 1 belongs to my wife, she also has an ipad, and kids have ipad mini and Samsung tablet.  what else do you wish to know? do not hesitate to ask,

 

[bmk1245]

12 minutes ago, aztek said:

i have 3 laptops, 2 ipads, mini and full size, and 1 android tablet, we buy a new laptop or a tablet on average  every two years. or if one brakes we replace it. 2 laptops are mine, 1 belongs to my wife, she also has an ipad, and kids have ipad mini and Samsung tablet.  what else do you wish to know? do not hesitate to ask,

 

OK, double/ (well, rather triple) the price of the goods you are paying for now. Would you be happy? And, oh dear, american patriot owning Samsung tablet...

BTW, Chinese already outsourcing manufacturing. Guess where to... African countries.

[aztek]

Just now, bmk1245 said:

OK, double/ (well, rather triple) the price of the goods you are paying for now. Would you be happy? And, oh dear, american patriot owning Samsung tablet...

BTW, Chinese already outsourcing manufacturing. Guess where to... African countries.

lol, if things cost 2x as much i would have to make more money than,  and 30%  price bump on something that i buy once in 10 years, especially if i can file it as tax deduction, would not stop me at all.  nor  it would stop anyone who is a market for panels.

i still can't see what your point is. that people would not be buying it if price went up 30%? then you are dead wrong. 

yes i own stuff from  samsung, apple, lenovo, hyundai, bmw, Kawasaki,  and hundreds of other things that are not american brands, so what?  

 

Edited February 9, 2018 by aztek

[DarkHunter]

On 2/6/2018 at 5:58 AM, toast said:

How exactly did you calculated its effectiveness and where exactly did you set the break-even point for your home-made calculation? The effectiveness of solar power is given by simple math, means, by the ROI of that technology. If there would not be a ROI, there would not be a related industry and no use of that technology.

Effectiveness goes far beyond just ROI calculations.  As I said Germany has an average solar potential of 3.08 solar hours per day, meaning that for 3.08 hours out of 24 approximately 1 kW/m^2 of energy will reach the surface in Germany.  Current commercial solar panels have an efficiency of about 21.5% perfect, some more experimental solar panels are getting around 45% efficiency but no matter what you will hit a hard limit at about 69% efficiency when electro thermodynamic effects take hold if I am remembering correctly.  Then there is the problem of lifespan with solar panels, they have a lifespan of about 20 to 30 years which isn't bad but the problem is that each year their efficiency drops.  Assuming a brand new 1 m^2 solar panel on average in Germany it will produce about 242 kWh of electricity in a year.  To put that in perspective you could get the same amount of energy from burning approximately 30 kg of coal which would cost about $1.80 at the current rate coal is selling for.  

It is also important to point out how the solar power energy only exist because of massive government subsidies to it.  From 2000 to October of 2017 the German government has spent around $222 billion subsidizing solar and wind power.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/07/business/energy-environment/german-renewable-energy.html

Another article points out how in 2016 Germany spent $25 billion dollars on solar and wind, of which $23 billion dollars came from tax payers having to pay significantly higher energy bills then the rest of Europe, except for Denmark that pays slightly higher for energy. 

http://fortune.com/2017/03/14/germany-renewable-clean-energy-solar/

Germany pays $0.30 per kWh tieing with Denmark, the rest of Europe pays on average pays about $0.17 almost half the cost of energy as Germany.  In a completely free marketplace where there would be no government interference in the form of subsidies in this case and the market for solar energy wouldn't exist.  They literally only exist cause they are receiving massive subsidies from the German government comparable to what Germany spends on its entire military.  If solar panels actually were the future they shouldn't require massive subsidies to even exist.

Quote

Thats one of the reasons why we need to fund R&D for solar power technologies. If the US will cut their R&D budget and other nations will not, the associated patents will be in the hands of others, forcing US customers to pay license fees.

No idea what you are on about here.  Funding research and development funding, or paying/no paying for licence fees, is not going to change the fact that you will still need rare earth elements to produce solar panels and it will not change the fact that they just don't produce enough energy.  No amount of funding is going to change the physical reality that only 1kW of power in 1 square meter of surface area reaches the earth's surface from the sun or the fact that you will hit a hard limit in maximum efficiency of solar panels.  Solar panels have by far the lowest energy density of every viable energy source by a massive margin.

Solar panels are not even that green of a renewable energy solution.  Besides from the fact extensive mining, on a similar scale to coal mining, is required to even get the raw materials required to even start producing solar panels there is also the fact that the refining of the rare earth elements and the production process both create rather large amounts of toxic waste and contaminated water.  From what I remember correctly, disposal and transportation of the waste products are not factored into the CO2 footprint of solar panel creation giving a false reading of how green they actually are.  

Quote

These figures are outdated, the actual values are: 35,8%/coal, 6,5%/gas, 13,4%/nuclear, 27,4%/wind, 2%/solar, 5%/hydro, 9%/biomass and <1% oil.  So the actual percentage by renewable energies in Germany is 43,8% in 2018 compared to 33,05%/2015, 33,7%/2016 and 38,3% in 2017. The rise is giving a good picture on the pace, which is scheduled to reach 80% in 2050 with the target of 100% later (or earlier) on.

Considering we are just 40 days into 2018, using 2018 data for German energy production and arguing that those numbers will stand with no change to better match the previous years of data seems a bit premature.  In the few days it took me to finally getting around to responding the percentage of energy coming from renewable energy has dropped to 42%, while not massive shows that the numbers you want to use are not reliable yet.  Given the fact that 2018 data isn't reliable it would be best to use 2017 data.  I highly doubt Germany will even be able to reach its 80% goal by 2050 let alone 100% unless they start building nuclear power plants or start enforcing some kind of energy rationing on its population.  

Quote

There is no problem. The amount of hydro power isnt limited to our own rivers. We will raise that amount by purchasing it from Norway, wich is the World`s largest producer of hydro power. The project is called NordLink and scheduled to operate from 2019 on. With that new grid, Germany`s energy production surplus, collected at nights by wind for example, will be stored in water reservoirs in Norway.

First off Norway is not the biggest producer of hydro power in the world, China is the biggest producer in the world at 1,064 TWh, Canada is second at 383 TWh, Brazil is third at 373 TWh.  Norway doesn't even come in till 7th behind United States, Russia, and India.  Norway only out produces Japan by 3 TWh or they would be 8th.  

With your blatant factual error out of the way there is Nord.Link and your idea of energy storage.  First off Nord.Link mentions absolutely nothing about what you are proposing with energy storage all they talk about on that site is how that cable will help connect the energy markets of Norway and Germany.  Secondly you do realize how difficult what you are proposing is don't you, the current dams in Norway don't have or need these pumps you are suggesting to store water for later energy use.  Norway would literally have to build more dams, doing who knows what environmental damage in the process as hydro power requires flooding previously unflooded areas, along with building and maintain these massive pumps to pump to store the energy in more then likely extremely remote areas.  

Anyway requiring the purchase of energy from another country because a country can not meet its own demand, largely because of some insane desire to only use certain energy sources, is in general not a very good plan.

Quote

The reason for that your boiler gets damaged by biogas might be caused by US lowtech products. If you want me to give you a supplier list for the real stuff pls let me know.

There is a difference between biogas and biomass, and the graphs used should of said biofuels if it was combining both biogas and biomass as those are two completely separate things. 

Biomass, as the graphs said, they imply solid biomass which Germany does use, not as extensively as biogas but still makes up approximately 20% of its biofuel energy production and biomass does damage coal boilers.  The damage comes from the fact that biomass is burned with the coal, this causes the boilers to burn at a lower then average temperature making them less efficient but the damage doesn't come from burning at lower temperature but instead from the fact that even at the reduced temperature it is a far higher temperature then what biomass would normally burn at.  Basically instead of burning to ash the heat energy causes a chemical reaction in the biomass that basically makes it melt into a sticky sludge that clogs basically everything it comes in contact with such as fuel or air intakes.  Also since its burning at a lower temperature and thus being less efficient it requires more fuel to be burned for the same amount of energy generation.  There is also issues with the particulate matter it releases, biomass releases far more particulate matter then coal does per kg if I remember correctly and its normally of a far worse and more difficult type to handle then coal.  You can get around the damage by torrefying the biomass but that cost a lot of energy and you don't gain much energy from doing it.

Biogas on the other hand while not damaging boilers due to it just being methane just isn't efficient.  If you look at just the energy cost in collecting and transporting the biogas it appears to be a net positive in energy and seems like it may be a good choice but when you factor in the energy required to grow, harvest, and move the plant material to get it to become biogas then you get anywhere from minuscule net energy gain to a net energy loss depending on a lot of different variables.  

I will admit I should of done a bit more research then just going off of a graph, but the graph really should of said biofuel instead of biomass.

Quote

You again provided incorrect figures as in between 2007 and 2017 the solar percentage raised constantly. The break you talked about was caused by a governmental funding cut in 2012, causing a decrease of purchase of German made solar power collectors.

It does raise constantly but no where near at the same rate and recently it seems to of hit its limit.

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

https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm?year=2015

Those two links provide some very interesting numbers, under generation for the wikipedia link it shows how solar energy generation, technically I should be using capacity but the second link only has generation and the two are close enough for most years anyway, with Germany has changed from 1990 to 2015 with the second link going from 2015 to the present.  What you should notice is that solar energy generation really started to drastically increase in the early 2000s but when 2012 hit it starts to rapidly drop off.  For the past few years the solar energy generation from Germany has remained about constant at about 38 to 39 TWh per year.  Germany is not realistically going to be able to drastically increase its solar energy production just like how it isn't going to be able to increase its hydro energy production leaving only biofuels, which are just a terrible choice or wind energy.

Quote

Also here you are wrong again. We have ca. 950 offshore units and ca. 27.300 onshore units yet which are running very well and thousands more are planned.

I was speaking of future expansion and not what Germany currently has because energy demands generally do grow each year and if Germany is going to reach its goal of renewable energy production they are going to have to greatly expand their wind farms.  The only problem with that is that land based wind farms can't really be expanded any further, only so much land is even viable to begin with and it seems most if not all of it is already being used for wind farms.  They can upgrade land based wind farms and try to extract slightly more energy but it isn't going to significantly increase total production of energy.  That leaves ocean based wind farms which once again Germany is going to run into the problem of there is only so much space to build them on.  Short term Germany can just build more ocean based wind farms but long term they will hit a limit on how many they can build but their energy demands almost certainly won't.  

Quote

The last remaining nuclear power plants here will be shut-off by 2020 and you can be quite sure that we will have the needed amount of energy that our economy is calling for.

I have no doubt that the last nuclear power plant will be shut down by 2020, they tend to be far easier to shut down then to build, and I don't doubt Germany will meet its required energy but I can say right now that it wont be met with renewable energy sources entirely but by an increase in fossil fuel use as has already been happening as Germany shuts down its nuclear reactors.

[bmk1245]

12 hours ago, aztek said:

lol, if things cost 2x as much i would have to make more money than,  and 30%  price bump on something that i buy once in 10 years, especially if i can file it as tax deduction, would not stop me at all.  nor  it would stop anyone who is a market for panels.

i still can't see what your point is. that people would not be buying it if price went up 30%? then you are dead wrong. 

yes i own stuff from  samsung, apple, lenovo, hyundai, bmw, Kawasaki,  and hundreds of other things that are not american brands, so what?  

 

Hm... OK.

Bingo! I see a solution to US debt problem: raise VAT to 67%. People will be buying stuff, afterall...

[Tatetopa]

On 2/1/2018 at 10:32 AM, aztek said:

cut wasteful spending, good idea, let private companies who are in clean energy business  pay for their research themselves,  we do not need another Solyndra, 80B out of the window, nothing to show for.  complete scam, thanks obama. trump is absolutely correct, again

You got a clue how much government subsidizes coal and petroleum?  it is not exactly a level playing field with tax cuts and regulation waivers going to coal and oil.  You probably know that Texas is the US leader in wind power?  They do it because it makes financial sense not because they are bleeding heart liberals or environmentalists.  That happened under Rick Perry.

[Tatetopa]

On 2/1/2018 at 10:48 AM, aztek said:

another right move,  he is absolutely correct , again, with low prices for china made panels it would never be profitable to make our own,  you can expect solar panel factories in usa open up, create jobs, and bring up the economy

The people that lost their jobs are the installers.  More expensive protected solar panels do not mean profitable companies opening up in the US. It means fewer projects will be done.

[DarkHunter]

48 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

You got a clue how much government subsidizes coal and petroleum?  it is not exactly a level playing field with tax cuts and regulation waivers going to coal and oil.  You probably know that Texas is the US leader in wind power?  They do it because it makes financial sense not because they are bleeding heart liberals or environmentalists.  That happened under Rick Perry.

The government subsidies nuclear, fossil fuels, wind, and solar energy.  The amount and type of subsidies varies extensively between all forms of energy with some benefiting much more from one form of subsidy then others but the trend has been that renewable energy sources have been gaining far more in subsidies then fossil fuels and nuclear combined since about 2009. 

I remember in my one class on hydro and wind power that the wind energy market is essentially on subsidy life support as without them the cost to build wind turbines with the cheap cost of energy would mean investors wouldnt be seeing any profits for decades instead of a few years.

[Tatetopa]

1 hour ago, DarkHunter said:

The government subsidies nuclear, fossil fuels, wind, and solar energy.  The amount and type of subsidies varies extensively between all forms of energy with some benefiting much more from one form of subsidy then others but the trend has been that renewable energy sources have been gaining far more in subsidies then fossil fuels and nuclear combined since about 2009. 

I remember in my one class on hydro and wind power that the wind energy market is essentially on subsidy life support as without them the cost to build wind turbines with the cheap cost of energy would mean investors wouldnt be seeing any profits for decades instead of a few years.

Thank you for that.  The government subsidizes all forms of energy.  The implication that the renewable energy people are the only ones feeding from that trough is untrue.

Lets not talk right or left for a bit.

What is an intelligent future energy policy?  How much are we willing to pay, how much damage are we willing to sustain?  Everything has a price.  Solar and wind are not currently as cheap as oil and natural gas.  Coal is not as cheap as natural gas.  Is there a reason to subsidize coal?  Are we willing to pay for water table contamination from fracking should it occur?  What options make sense?  The US still imports about 5 million barrels of oil a day.  DarkHunter, I can't reasonably count the US military cost for keeping the Straits of Hormuz open as an outright oil subsidy, but it comes close.  Would we even be meddling in the middle east if it wasn't floating on oil?

Countries protect their manufacturing with tariffs, I get that, though I am not greatly in favor of them.  Here is what I don't get:  technology is not a Democratic or Republican thing.  Research and development is what gives us a strong defense and has put us technologically ahead up until now.  Other nations, notably China, India, and Russia, are spending billions on all sorts of research.  Other governments make development of technology a government policy with goals to achieve in the future.  Why shouldn't we.  Why not develop more effective solar, wind, biomass and other forms of energy?  Why not develop more efficient cars, appliances, computers etc.?  I am a lot more in favor of science and progress and believing we can make the world a better place than I am for either party.

By the way, foreign students come to the US because of our position in so many fields of knowledge.  They pay full tuition and come to the tune of about a million a year.  That brings in $39 billion dollars to US universities. Far fewer US students study abroad.about 320, 000.  Look at that, a trade surplus.

The other thing I don't get is people who have a distrust for the government ( I kinda get that part)  at the same time have so much faith in multinational corporations like petroleum and pharmaceutical companies to do the right thing.  I don't trust them either.