## 4 Results
### Comparative Analysis of CBA Methodologies and Results
#### Calculation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Costs According to the CBA Methodology in Austria
Therefore, we analyzed the density values of selected fuels from relevant sources, e.g., HBEFA methodology, EN 16258 and ISO 14083 standards, or information from fuel producers (e.g., Slovnaft a. s.) or from other relevant projects and studies (e.g., Join Research Centre, JEC Well-To-Wheels report v5 [71]). Figure 2 compares the density of petrol and diesel under the CBA methodology applicable in the Slovak Republic, the HBEFA methodology, and two standards--ISO 14083 and EN 16258. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Year/Country** & **SK** & **H** & **A** & **CZ** \\ \hline
2020 & 0.0167 & 0.0191 & 0.0209 & 0.0165 \\
2021 & 0.0173 & 0.0200 & 0.0209 & 0.0171 \\
2022 & 0.0176 & 0.0201 & 0.0209 & 0.0173 \\
2023 & 0.0176 & 0.0201 & 0.0209 & 0.0176 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 20: Length of superior infrastructure per square kilometer of territory in the compared countries, the authors based on [70]. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Parameter** & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**CBA Methodology**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & **CBA SK** & **CBA HU** & **CBA AT** & **CBA CZ** \\ \hline CO\({}_{2}\) (kg) & 281.658 & - & 286.688 & 178.331 \\ CH\({}_{4}\) (kg) & 0.0242 & - & - & 0.0019 1 \\ N\({}_{2}\)O (kg) & 0.00458 & - & - & 0.01519 1 \\ CO\({}_{2}\)e (kg) & 283.6198 & 267.4965 & - & 182.863 \\ GHG costs (EUR) & EUR 54.824 & EUR 6.012 & EUR 14.334 & EUR 29.302 (CZK 742.607) \\  & & (HUF 2460.567) & & 10.97\% & 26.15\% & 53.45\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* \({}^{1}\) Considers only CO\({}_{2}\) due to the unavailability of data on emission factors for CH\({}_{4}\) and N\({}_{2}\)O emissions in the CBA methodology in the Czech Republic; data from the calculation of CH\({}_{4}\) and N\({}_{2}\)O emissions in [53; 69] were used. Note 1—conversion to EUR currency according to the ECB and NBS exchange rate list as of 5 November 2024: 1 EUR = 25.343 CZK; 1 EUR = 409.25 HUF. Note 2—EN after adjustment considering a diesel density of 0.832 kg/L.  
\end{table} 
Table 19: Results of a comparative study of the GHG emissions and GHG costs of semi-trailer truck transport. Table 21 compares the density of selected fuels by country under the HBEFA methodology, version 4.2.2, and includes the calculated mean and median values of the fuels. The names of fuels and energy sources are given in their original wording as used in the HBEFA methodology. The ID represents the code applied to the fuel or energy source within the HBEFA methodology. Density values in the CBA methodology in the SR are lower compared to those in the HBEFA methodology. For gasoline, the density value in the CBA methodology in the SR is lower by 2.92%; for diesel, it is lower by 1.86%; and for CNG, it is lower by 3.45%. The difference in density values for petrol between the CBA SR methodology and the ISO 14083 and 16258 standards is even more pronounced, with the SR CBA value being 3.10% lower than the ISO 14083 standard and 3.36% lower than the EN 16258 standard. For diesel, the difference is the same as the HBEFA methodology; for CNG, ISO 14083 and EN 16258 do not provide a density value.