## 4 Results
### Comparative Analysis of CBA Methodologies and Results  
1.1 Comparison of the CBA Methodology in the Slovak Republic in the Field of Climate Change and Identification of Differences with Other Methodologies  
The CBA methodology in the Slovak Republic is disproportionate toward GHG emissions, where indirect emissions from electricity production are considered for electric vehicles. It would, therefore, be appropriate to consider indirect emissions of pollutants from electricity generation in the methodology and in the external cost assessment. For electric vehicles, the CBA methodology in the Slovak Republic considers indirect emissions (WtT) in grams per kWh of electricity consumption, and the EIB published three categories of emission factors by voltage. Table 40 in the CBA methodology in SR contains outdated values of emission factors for electricity consumption. Updating the values of the emission factors for electricity consumption is necessary. The CBA methodology in the Slovak Republic considers CO\({}_{2}\), CH\({}_{4}\), and N\({}_{2}\)O emissions; similarly, these types of GHG emissions are also applied in the methodology in the Czech Republic (emissions are directly listed in the methodology). This approach is correct. The CBA methodology in the Slovak Republic does not consider indirect greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (WtT) from the use of fossil fuels as an example of objectively reporting the impact of transport on GHG production for different modes of transport. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Year** & \begin{tabular}{c} **CZK/ton** \\ **CO\({}_{2}\)es** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **EUR/ton** \\ **CO\({}_{2}\)es** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Year** \\ **CO\({}_{2}\)es** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **CZK/ton** \\ **CO\({}_{2}\)es** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **EUR/ton** \\ **CO\({}_{2}\)es** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
2022 & 3128 & 123.43 & 2038 & 12,924 & 509.96 \\
2023 & 3594 & 141.81 & 2039 & 13,665 & 539.20 \\
2024 & 4061 & 160.24 & 2040 & 14,405 & 568.40 \\
2025 & 4527 & 178.63 & 2041 & 15,146 & 597.64 \\
2026 & 4994 & 197.06 & 2042 & 15,887 & 626.88 \\
2027 & 5460 & 215.44 & 2043 & 16,628 & 656.12 \\
2028 & 5927 & 233.87 & 2044 & 17,369 & 685.36 \\
2029 & 6393 & 252.26 & 2045 & 18,110 & 714.60 \\
2030 & 6860 & 270.69 & 2046 & 18,878 & 744.90 \\
2031 & 7628 & 300.99 & 2047 & 19,646 & 775.20 \\
2032 & 8396 & 331.29 & 2048 & 20,414 & 805.51 \\
2033 & 9165 & 361.64 & 2049 & 21,183 & 835.85 \\
2034 & 9933 & 391.94 & 2050 & 21,951 & 866.16 \\
2035 & 10,701 & 422.25 & 2051 & 21,951 & 866.16 \\
2036 & 11,442 & 451.49 & 2052 & 21,951 & 866.16 \\
2037 & 12,183 & 480.72 & 2053 & 21,951 & 866.16 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: Conversion to EUR currency according to the ECB and NBS exchange rate list as of 5 November 2024: 1 EUR = 25,343 CZK.  
\end{table} 
Table 9: Unit cost of CO\({}_{2}\)es from and including 2022 (CZK/ton), CU 2017 [63, 65]. The source of emission factor values of selected fuels for indirect GHG emissions (WtT) or direct and indirect GHG emissions (well-to-wheel, WtW) can be, e.g.,
* ISO 14083 Greenhouse gases--Quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions arising from transport chain operations, effective March 2023;
* Standard EN 16258;
* HBEFA Methodology 4.2.2. The CBA methodology in the Slovak Republic applies the conversion of emissions of three types of greenhouse gas emissions (CO\({}_{2}\), CH\({}_{4}\), and N\({}_{2}\)O) to a standard unit of CO\({}_{2}\)es. Similarly, the methodologies in Hungary and the Czech Republic apply a similar conversion of emissions per unit CO\({}_{2}\)es. This approach is correct. The CBA methodology in Austria only considers CO\({}_{2}\) emissions, does not consider CH\({}_{4}\) and N\({}_{2}\)O emissions, and logically does not consider the conversion of emissions to CO\({}_{2}\)es. This is related to the year of publication of the methodology, 2010.