ᐅ Underfloor heating or large-area radiators?

Until yesterday, it was clear to me that I wanted underfloor heating in my next house. Then I read the following from Thomas Königstein: "Avoid underfloor heating. Due to its inertia, it is not suitable for a quick response to heat gains from solar radiation. And it is expensive. It is better to install more affordable (preferably flat) panel radiators, type 10, with a thermostatic valve."

From a purely technical perspective, the argument about inertia is probably correct. But how problematic is this in practice? Note: I am referring to the same low-temperature system for both options; the only difference is the heating surface, so the panel radiators would be relatively large.

Yes, underfloor heating is slow to respond. Problematic? Maybe 3-4 days per year. Otherwise, the advantages outweigh this, such as free wall space, low supply temperature, warm floors, no dust circulation, and so on.

karl.jonas schrieb:

Note: I am referring to the same low-temperature system for both options; the difference lies only in the heating surface, so the panel radiators would be relatively large.

Of course, you can also just mount the appropriate radiators on the wall. But then you probably need big 33mm (1.3 inches) ones—10mm (0.4 inches) won’t be enough. I still have a garage full of 33mm (1.3 inches) radiators from renovating a KFW 55 apartment.

Aside from that, every house gets really warm when the sun shines through the windows. Just like yesterday and today.

karl.jonas schrieb:

Due to their thermal inertia, they are not suitable for a quick response to heat gains from solar radiation.

During the period when heat gains from solar radiation are truly bothersome—likely from May to August—the underfloor heating is inactive. So it makes no difference at all.