## 5 Calculating the MUA's Energy Demand
### Incorporation of Thermal Solar Panels to the TCP Panel Installation
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Month**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **No of** \\ **Days** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Direct** \\ **Irradiance** \\ **(kWh/m\({}^{2}\) year)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Diffuse** \\ **Irradiance** \\ **(kWh/m\({}^{2}\) year)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Direct Energy** \\ **(kWh/m\({}^{2}\) year)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Diffuse Energy** \\ **per Month** \\ **(kWh/m\({}^{2}\))** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Total Energy** \\ **per Month** \\ **(kWh/m\({}^{2}\))** \\ \end{tabular} } \\ \hline January & 31 & 1.66 & 0.95 & 51.46 & 29.45 & 80.91 \\ February & 28 & 2.31 & 1.18 & 64.68 & 33.04 & 97.72 \\ March & 31 & 3.03 & 1.67 & 93.93 & 51.77 & 145.7 \\ April & 30 & 4.30 & 1.83 & 129 & 54.9 & 183.9 \\ May & 31 & 4.65 & 2.26 & 144.15 & 70.06 & 214.21 \\ June & 30 & 5.40 & 2.25 & 162 & 67.5 & 229.5 \\ July & 31 & 5.56 & 2.17 & 172.36 & 67.27 & 239.63 \\ August & 31 & 4.65 & 2.17 & 144.15 & 67.27 & 211.42 \\ September & 30 & 3.79 & 1.66 & 113.7 & 49.8 & 163.5 \\ October & 31 & 2.69 & 1.30 & 83.39 & 40.3 & 123.69 \\ November & 30 & 1.84 & 0.97 & 55.2 & 29.1 & 84.3 \\ December & 31 & 1.44 & 0.83 & 44.64 & 25.73 & 70.37 \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Annual**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **1258.66** \\ **radiation** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **1258.66** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} **586.19** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **1844.85** \\ \end{tabular} } \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{6-6} \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Solar energy received per days, months and year. (Table 3). These are substantial values and they reflect the viability of these radiant TCP panel systems with rooftop thermal solar panels. As illustrated, the energy consumption of the all-air system with split heat pump machines to distribute air in OP1 is 133% higher than that of the installation of water distribution to TCP panels in OP2 and OP3. Furthermore, it is 255% higher than that of OP3 with solar thermal panels. The energy consumption of OP2 is 24.91% less than that of OP1 or the all-air system, for the reasons described in paragraph 1. Consumption due to dehumidification, with the two fan-coils of OP2 and OP3 is 39.36 MWh/y, i.e., 30.08% of the total consumption of OP1, which would mean the installation of TCP panels would be a priori more unfavourable. However, the savings derived from the energy needed to transport the water compared to that of the air, as well as the thermal load reductions by reducing the thermal gap of the heat flow through the enclosures, means the system leads to substantial energy savings compared to OP1 overall. CO\({}_{2}\) emissions were also quantified in the electrical mix to obtain an initial estimate of environmental impacts, based on the ELCD database [49]. According to this estimate, to produce 1 electric kWh, a total of 0.41 kg CO\({}_{2}\), 0.00122 kg CH\({}_{4}\) and 0.0000465 kg N\({}_{2}\)O are released. Once final energy consumption from the user perspective was quantified for all the options OP1 to OP3, yearly CO\({}_{2}\) emissions could be quantified during the user stage. To finish, the system's primary energy consumption and CO\({}_{2}\) emissions were calculated using the factors of the Institute for Diversification and Saving of Energy (IDAE by its Spanish acronym) for 2010 [50], specifically: 2.21 MWhp/MWhf and 0.27 tCO\({}_{2}\)eq/MWh (Table 3).