There is a land use issue here. Not all sites have a southerly aspect, they may be shaded or in a street running north south.

Therefore it would be difficult to be prescriptive. I see plenty of modern building with an inapproriate designed south facing glazed facade which will lead to over heating.

The best way to improve the performance of public buildings is to improve modelling like the SBEM and to tighten up the standards required.

Each site will have its own priorities and possibilities.

Yes I have used SBEM and its rubbish at everything other thean giving a final result on energy and co2.(And even then I have no way of knowing how accurate that is).
The other problem with it is that the building regs guys dont understand it or how to interpret the results.

But this form of modelling could be improved to help design out overglazing and provide recommendations for improvement.
It is also easy to tighten up the requirements becuase you dont have to do it elementally like you used to.
So whilst SBEM is useless as a design tool it is the right way to go to improve standards.

Most of the models I looked at required you to re-enter all the CAD drawing which makes them very difficult to use unless you have a very simple building.

i orientated 2 solar panels due south and standing up at 50 degrees ( latitude here is 52 degrees )
to catch max sun in spring and autumn and not to overheat in summer, they can only recieve 3 hours direct sun in winter, so south facing orientation helps compensate for this. they are steeper than the roof and raised. sun powered shower is great.
Cant afford to not use free solar energy, many public buildings have good orientation and can harvest lots of the sun power. govt commitment would stimulate investment in low carbon technology.
Photo Voltaic panels can track the sun from side to side and up and down.
hot water Solar panels could at least move in one axis. for max sun steep in winter pointing up in summer, would need flexible pipes,
follow the sun

Surely it's a matter of asking whether the energy used by the motors that move the panel use more or less energy than than the extra energy captured by the panel at the improved orientation.

And then you have to add in the servicing cost since anything that moves eventually gets stuck.

Based on the fact that virtually all the pv panels are fixed I suspect the answer is clear.

Posted By: biffvernonSurely it's a matter of asking whether the energy used by the motors that move the panel use more or less energy than than the extra energy captured by the panel at the improved orientation.

And then you have to add in the servicing cost since anything that moves eventually gets stuck.

Based on the fact that virtually all the pv panels are fixed I suspect the answer is clear.

That's what I meant by the energy rquirement being prohibitive, sorry if it wasn't clear. Perhaps most PVs are all fixed because of the cost of tracking systems as stephendy suggests. Surely the cost of fossil fuels will likely make this kind of technology cost effective sooner or later.

The crux is the energy requirement needed. Anyone care to comment on this?