By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The scientific community is celebrating the cancellation of the proposed $10bn INNA green hydrogen and ammonia facility, which had threatened the exceptionally clear skies of Chile’s Atacama Desert, a prime location for ground-based astronomy. Astronomers had warned the project’s proximity to major observatories like Paranal would cause irreparable damage to observations through light pollution, vibrations, dust, and atmospheric turbulence. While this cancellation averts a direct threat, it underscores the urgent need for enhanced protection measures for professional astronomical sites in Chile, as the work to safeguard these skies is far from over.
Read the original article here
It’s certainly a relief for the global astronomy community, and indeed for anyone who values our understanding of the cosmos, that the ambitious $10 billion INNA project in Chile has been cancelled. This massive undertaking, envisioned as a 3,000-hectare facility for green hydrogen and ammonia production, complete with its own port, transport links, and solar power plants, had been under intense scrutiny for nearly a year by Chile’s environmental regulator. The core of the concern, and the reason for such widespread celebration among astronomers, was its proposed proximity to some of the planet’s most powerful and sensitive telescopes.
The Atacama Desert in Chile is, by all accounts, an unparalleled location for ground-based astronomy. Its exceptionally clear skies, dry atmosphere, and high altitude create conditions that are simply unmatched anywhere else on Earth. This is why so much investment has been poured into building world-class observatories there, with the hope of peering deeper into the universe than ever before. The INNA project, with its industrial scale and potential for light and radio wave pollution, posed a direct and significant threat to the integrity of these observations. Astronomers had been vocal, and rightly so, about the irreparable damage such a facility could inflict on decades of scientific endeavor and future discoveries.
It’s a complex situation, though, isn’t it? On one hand, there’s a deep appreciation for the scientific value of pristine astronomical sites. On the other, one can’t help but feel for developing nations striving for economic growth. The argument arises that when established nations industrialized, they often did so without the same environmental considerations. Now, asking poorer countries to forgo potentially lucrative development projects that leverage their natural advantages, like Chile’s clear skies or Brazil’s rainforests, can feel like a double standard.
The ideal scenario, a sentiment echoed by many, would be for nations that benefit from these pristine environments to compensate countries for preserving them. Imagine a world where developed nations financially support countries to forgo environmentally impactful projects that threaten globally significant natural or scientific assets. This isn’t about hindering development entirely, but about finding sustainable pathways that acknowledge the shared benefits of a healthy planet and unimpeded scientific progress. It’s a form of international environmental stewardship, where the “environmental services” provided by a country like Chile are recognized and valued.
It’s important to note that this wasn’t necessarily an outright rejection of green hydrogen development in Chile, nor was it a judgment on the concept of developing countries seeking to utilize their resources. The issue, as many pointed out, was the *location*. The proposed facility was slated to be built right next door to these vital astronomical assets. There are many places where such a project could be situated without jeopardizing the delicate work of astronomers. Much like the United States has specific radio-quiet zones to protect sensitive radio telescopes, other locations could have been considered for the INNA project.
The decision by the Chilean government, in this instance, appears to have weighed the potential economic benefits of the new hydrogen project against the substantial value of its existing astronomy industry. It seems they recognized that the long-term scientific and economic contributions of their astronomical observatories, and the global reputation they bring, outweighed the advantages of locating the INNA project in that specific, highly sensitive area. This outcome, therefore, can be seen as a clear demonstration of international stakeholders – in this case, the global scientific community – effectively “paying” a country for environmental services by supporting its decision to protect a globally significant resource.
The idea that this development represents “modern insanity” is a bit of a stretch, however. The project included plans for a port and solar power plants, which are generally considered components of a more sustainable energy future, not inherently detrimental “modern insanity.” The criticism was firmly rooted in the specific placement of these components in close proximity to the telescopes. It’s a nuanced distinction between rejecting progress and advocating for responsible, well-considered progress that respects existing, invaluable scientific infrastructure. Ultimately, the cancellation of the INNA project near Chile’s premier astronomical sites is a victory for clear skies and clear thinking, safeguarding our ability to explore the universe for generations to come.