ᐅ Infrared heating throughout the entire house?

Wandervogel85 schrieb:

and the heating energy is supplied by the photovoltaic system.

So far, so good—if you’re heating in summer. Otherwise, you would need a very large system to be able to heat using the solar radiation levels in winter.

tomtom79 schrieb:

I found the heat from infrared heating uncomfortable. Very warm in specific spots and quite slow to warm up a room.

I find the warmth from infrared heaters very pleasant—as long as I’m not directly exposed to the radiation. On the other hand, I don’t like underfloor heating. Different preferences for different people.

pagoni2020 schrieb:

Every heating system requires good planning and must absolutely take your preferences and needs into account,

Absolutely: The placement of the infrared heating zones must be considered in the architectural design from the start.

Even though the initial costs are lower, the operating costs are significantly higher than other solutions, such as a heat pump.

Why we still chose infrared heating in our house is simple: we love radiant heat. The infrared heating is also only a backup for the masonry heater and the convenience heating system in the children’s apartments. When we moved in, they were 17 and 19 years old, so it’s foreseeable that these apartments will not be used permanently.

I really don’t understand what your issue is with smaller houses. You criticize them at every opportunity.

I only asked about infrared heating because I can’t quite picture it. I’ve never heard of anyone heating their entire house that way. There must be reasons for that. I only know it as a supplementary heating system.

What speaks against supplying a small house with climate-friendly energy, I also haven’t understood yet. Living space and energy production are two completely different matters. On the contrary, I actually think it’s important and forward-looking. And as long as the additional costs and any extra subsidies roughly balance each other out, why not? I’d just categorize the roughly 5000 EUR (about 5300 USD) extra cost (compared to no KfW funding and a gas heating system) as idealism.

Wandervogel85 schrieb:

I still don’t understand what speaks against wanting to supply a small house with climate-friendly energy. Living space and energy production are two completely different things. On the contrary, I think it’s even important and forward-looking.

You’re on a great track with your thoughts. Small house, climate-friendly energy. They go well together.

When it comes to heating with electricity, there are a few important points to consider:
1. Electric heating systems differ in efficiency. A heat pump is 2 to 4 times more efficient in heating output than an infrared panel—this is why many builders prefer heat pumps over other electric heaters.
2. Infrared panels produce radiant heat, while heat pumps either warm a thermal mass through underfloor heating, creating convection, or directly heat the air. The radiant source warms objects around it, which act as heat storage. When you are within the direct radiation field, you feel immediate warmth, similar to standing by a fire or in sunlight. In houses with radiant heat sources, air temperatures around 19°C (66°F) are usually perceived as comfortable. This somewhat offsets the efficiency difference but does not eliminate it.
3. Energy is only climate-friendly if it is generated in a climate-friendly way. Since a photovoltaic system, sized economically for the heating period, produces too little electricity for heating and long-term storage is still very expensive, additional energy must be purchased. This is no reason to forego a photovoltaic system, but one should not count on it to cover heating demand during the heating season.

In a small, energy-efficient house, I can well imagine heating climate-friendly and efficiently using the comfortable radiant heat. To do this, infrared units would need to radiate from exterior walls onto a good thermal mass toward the center of the house (anything directed at windows is lost because windows do not retain infrared radiation). It would also be beneficial not to aim radiant heat directly at living areas. This is something worth calculating.

kati1337 schrieb:

The house was always a comfortably warm 24°C (75°F). Everything was run through the inverter; we didn’t need the auxiliary heater. 🙂

Running this with an air-to-water heat pump is pretty challenging. You don’t need the auxiliary heater either. But these heat pumps require ultra-low flow temperatures, especially with such a high desired room temperature; otherwise, your costs will skyrocket. This makes the systems quite slow to respond. I recently visited some friends with a pellet heating system, which is definitely a cool alternative compared to these heat pump systems. However, it costs significantly more upfront (installation), though the fuel is cheaper.

What is the name of the construction company that suggested this to you again?

Underfloor heating has become common not only because it is energy-efficient but also because it is spatially very convenient, as you no longer have any obstructive elements on the walls.

I also once considered infrared heating for occasional supplementary warmth, but I think it is a poor choice for anything more, especially as the main heating system in new builds.

Best of both worlds: we have wall heating systems and a wood chip heating system. 🙂