To the OP, are you still hoping to emmigrate?
This week’s Economist reported that Iceland was eyeing up other currencies, the Euro amongst others.
This Economist also reported that the UK was given a AAA rating on Jan 13th, on account of how much money the government still has to throw at the banks should the poo continue to hit the fan.
Should that last line be comforting?
Oh yeah! As soon as I get a job somewhere else…
Lots of discussions about that, but that will mean that the Big Boys on the Block will loose a lot of power. And we can’t have that happening now, can we? And the EU is soooo evil and will take all our fish away… and did you now they even regulate the size of the tomatos!?!
:rolleyes:
Cool! Iceland sure doesn’t have that… as the rating agencies say.
WTF? Rioting in Iceland? They seemed so, I don’t know, Nordic-ly reserved.
It’s always the quiet ones you have to look out for…
It’s in the blood. All that money we had just soothed us for awhile. Now when it’s gone… beware the Viking rampage 
Worm, serious question: Do you think that this problem will result in migration away from the city center and more people taking up farming again?
Quick answer: Nope.
Slightly longer answer: The countryside can’t really handle much more people. Most farms are dying, due to the hardships involved with being a farmer on a barren rock. Sure, there is some fertile land here and some of my relatives imagine that Iceland can be self sufficient. But most farmers graze sheep and most of them barely get by. I recall a politician saying last fall that more than half of all farms in Iceland are technically bankrupt.
Some people will also move to the smaller communities, back to where they came from and make a living there by working with the fish and the amneties they need.
But most people who relocate will move abroad, with Norway being the no. 1 destination.
Did that make any sense?
Absolutely. I thought perhaps they would invest in hydroponics to get around the issues of the soil. I know that there are a few commercial farms there that grow on a large scale using this system combined with geothermally heated greenhouses. The interesting thing is that these systems are equally effective for smaller farms, and so long as power is not obscenely expensive there, crops could be grown continuously regardless of the sun. The problem with self sufficiency would be cereal crops which don’t care much for those types of systems. Still, one could produce nearly everything else, including fruits.
Don’t give them any ideas regarding particularly high-margin crops . . . .
Worm not to be selfish, but asking just selfishly: just how cheap would visitors find Iceland by this point?
Way cheaper than before, but still not really very cheap.
Richard Parker went here in December and he describes it really well in this post.
Actually, it might be a good way out of some of the mess for them.
That’s a lot of jobs and food cutting WAY back on the number of import crops needed.
The average cost of a fully automated greenhouse construction is about 180k per acre. However, once built it produces about 120k a year in salable crops.
Oh. You meant hydroponic food.
Why not both? A high quality crop of marijuana would also be of value to a struggling economy. Iceland has such a low crime rate that the few problems weed tourism might bring probably would not put to much strain on the police forces. Beyond that, a properly grown and quality controlled crop would be in high demand to other countries who do not have legislation against it.
Those are way cool numbers, I have to check that out.
Not to hijack my own thread any more than necessary 
Why isn’t this used more in other places?
Don’t see that happening. Iceland really doesn’t have the same view on soft drugs as other places. There’s no way it’ll be legalized.
High cost of construction, and it like any other geeky thing, it can get rather technical, requiring some level of training in the staff.
Currently, the yields are slightly lower than traditional commercial dirt farms. However, in regions that are hostile to farming, it can provide excellent results. Hydroponics has other problems as well. it depends heavily on uninterrupted power to run the pumps and lights, and in colder climates, heat. Nutrient solution mixing errors, as well as other problems like fungal infections can quickly ruin a crop. Mostly though, it is resistance from traditional farmers, and large agribusiness that has kept it somewhat down in the united states. if a lot of large operations turned to hydroponics, it would put a lot of people out of business.
Cheap energy, check!
Cheap heat, check!
Educated people, check!
Region hostile to farming, check!
We have a complete match 
Now I just need to talk to some people who have some pull.
okay. For the example above of feeding a million people, construction would cost 450 million. While that cost would be quickly recouped, that’s a huge chunk of cash to lay down. Those numbers are worst case scenario, but even half that is still a loft of money. Most small countries with struggling economies aren’t going to bother unless they have trouble producing their own crops.
That would also produce 15,000 jobs assuming the average of 6 workers per acre.
So a third of that would be 150 million USD which is about 18,5 billion ISK.
That’s 7,5% of the IMF loan, which is a heckuva lot of dough.
And I believe your last sentence might be quite suitable for Iceland at the moment 
True, but the amount of money recouped through self sufficient crop production into the economy would be fantastic. Remember, the numbers we are playing with were allowing for a 40% production capacity. At 90-100% you could theoretically produce enough to export some significant crops to other Scandinavian and northern European countries, saving a fortune on transport costs.
This could politically backfire though, as a first world nation would be competing with third world farming nations for market share…