Converting carbon into ecofriendly substances: an interview with Won Da-hye

Beyond CCS, another unique method to undo the ever-increasing carbon emissions is CO₂ conversion. One researcher investigating such unique and innovative climate strategy is Won Da-hye at Korea Institute of Science and Technology (KIST). She provided insights into the noteworthy effectiveness of CO₂ conversion, its application to businesses, as well as future opportunities in the technology's advancement.

I heard that your uncle mentioned you’re researching CO₂ conversion catalysts. The term “conversion catalyst” might sound a little unfamiliar — could you explain it in simpler terms?

Sure. Let me first explain a bit about the field I’m working in. My research focuses on using electrochemistry to convert water and carbon dioxide, with the help of electricity, into useful compounds.

These compounds can be things like carbon monoxide, ethylene, ethanol, or formic acid. The idea is that water acts as the source of hydrogen, CO₂ provides the carbon, and together they form C–H containing molecules.

Now, many different compounds can be produced, but what actually determines which product comes out is the catalyst. That’s the core of my research.

The system itself is quite similar to a battery, with an anode and a cathode. The difference is that a battery generates power by exploiting the potential difference, while in this case we’re feeding in electrical energy to drive the conversion of stable CO₂ into something useful.

So, in short: since CO₂ conversion is a reduction reaction, my work is about developing the catalysts that make that reduction possible.

And how important do you think CO₂ conversion technology is?

Well, the big issue today is the climate crisis. The crisis fundamentally comes from the rising concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere. To lower that concentration, we need ways to actively transform CO₂ into other substances.

So I believe this technology is essential for human survival. If we can use it to convert CO₂ into useful products, we not only reduce its levels in the air but also contribute to preventing extreme climate events.

At the current stage, what do you see as the biggest challenges or areas that need improvement? How far has the research come?

For a long time, this was considered pure scientific exploration — no one thought it would reach commercialization. But recently, with the urgency of climate change and industry pressure, progress has been rapid.

The biggest challenge is the source of electricity. As I mentioned, the process requires electrical energy. But if that electricity comes from fossil fuels, then the technology has no real competitiveness.

To truly work, it must be powered by renewable energy. Right now, global renewable infrastructure is still lacking. So while we researchers focus on the reaction, we also rely on parallel progress in cleaner electricity and cheaper power. Otherwise, the technology won’t be viable at scale.

You also mentioned rising demand from companies. How are corporations trying to apply this technology?

Companies with high CO₂ emissions — for example, petrochemical and steel industries — are under pressure to reduce emissions. If they don’t, they face heavy penalties, like carbon border taxes.

So, many of these industries are actively looking into CO₂-reduction technologies. For instance, recently KIST, LG Chem, and Korea Midland Power demonstrated a large-scale electrochemical CO₂ conversion process. The pilot system could process about 300 kg of CO₂ per day, producing carbon monoxide, which could then be used in bio-processes to create fuels like hexanol, potentially usable in aviation.

That was the largest demonstration of its kind in Korea so far.

Are other countries also developing this technology?

Yes, very much. The US is currently leading large-scale efforts, though Europe has also been strong given its focus on renewables. Globally, development is accelerating.

Collaboration is also very active at the research level. Our groups exchange knowledge with leading international labs, and I don’t think Korea’s technology lags behind at all. For example, the Greenal Process demonstration in Korea is among the largest worldwide. So collaboration is happening on equal footing — not as “teachers and learners,” but as peers sharing progress.

Is this technology also connected to emissions trading systems (ETS), not just carbon taxes?

Yes, potentially. Companies could earn credits for the amount of CO₂ reduced and then trade those credits.

But my research is still very fundamental, so I can’t say for sure how the policy side will evolve. What I do know is that companies are very interested — they’re constantly reaching out, visiting labs, and scouting for technologies that could be applied to their industries.

How does CO₂ conversion compare with other carbon-reduction approaches, like CCS or renewable energy?

Broadly, carbon management falls under CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) and CCU (Carbon Capture and Utilization). My work is on the utilization side. CCS is more mature, but it has a storage problem: where do you actually put the captured CO₂? Often, it’s stored underground in depleted oil fields. But in a country like Korea, where oil fields don’t exist, storage options are limited. That’s why I think utilization — turning CO₂ into valuable products — is crucial. The advantage of CCU is that instead of just burying CO₂, you can convert it into compounds with economic value that can be sold and used.

What kinds of valuable products can be made from CO₂ conversion?

The most common is syngas, a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. From syngas, we already have well-established technologies to produce methanol, alcohols, waxes, and even fuels.

The problem has always been making syngas cheaply. If we can use electrochemistry to produce it cleanly and affordably from CO₂, then it could provide a new sustainable supply chain for plastics, fuels, and other essential materials.

So in your view, how crucial is scientific research in addressing the climate crisis?

Honestly, without science, the only other option would be to return to a pre-industrial lifestyle. But people aren’t going to give up modern conveniences. Energy demand will only keep growing — especially with technologies like AI driving up electricity use.

So the only path forward is to keep developing better technologies, faster, to reduce environmental impacts while meeting human needs. Otherwise, the crisis will only worsen.