Is infrared heating cost effective? The pros and cons explained
Is infrared heating cost effective? What it costs to install, what it costs to run, how to work out the kilowatt hours for your own building, and the drawbacks worth knowing.
Yes, infrared heating is cost effective, because the heat is not used to warm the surrounding air but the objects in the room directly. The long-lasting warmth means users can often turn thermostats down by a few degrees and still feel comfortable, which leaves plenty of scope for reducing running costs. Pairing infrared heaters with digital thermostats and smart home systems reduces waste further.
Imagine waking on a cold winter morning and swapping frigid air for a comforting, sun-like warmth that meets you as you step out of bed. That is the experience infrared heaters offer.
Infrared is one of the most efficient forms of heat transmission available, but is it cost effective? Below we dissect the pros and cons to see whether the technology delivers both economic efficiency and comfort.
Understanding infrared heating
Infrared heating has been used for many years in industrial and commercial settings, and has gained popularity among homeowners more recently. Put simply, it generates heat by emitting electromagnetic radiation which travels through space and heats objects in its path.
To understand the mechanics, imagine sitting outside on a sunny day and feeling cold in the shade. Step into direct sunlight and you feel warm almost instantly, even though the air around you has not changed. The sun emits both visible and invisible light, including infrared, which heats your body and your surroundings directly.
Unlike traditional systems that heat air and circulate it, infrared heats objects directly. The heat is delivered where it is wanted rather than dispersed into air that stratifies and escapes, and that is where the saving comes from.
- Electric infrared converts essentially all of the electricity it draws into heat in the room. Under the UK’s SAP methodology, direct electric heating is treated as 100% efficient at the point of use. Nothing goes up a flue.
- Because the warmth reaches you as radiation rather than as warm air, most people report the same comfort at an air temperature two to three degrees lower than they would need from a convection system.
- European energy agencies put the heating saving at roughly 6% for every degree the thermostat comes down. Two to three degrees is therefore in the order of 12 to 18% less energy for the same felt warmth.
- Fast response and true room-by-room zoning add to that, because you heat the rooms you are actually in, when you are in them.
Radiant and radiative heating are not the same thing
Radiant heating refers to thermal radiation emitted from a hot surface or element towards cooler surroundings. Radiative heating involves electromagnetic radiation emitted between two surfaces at different temperatures until they reach thermal equilibrium.
Stand near a fireplace and the warmth you feel is radiant heating: the heat is absorbed by your body and your surroundings rather than by the air. Radiative heating is what happens between you and a cold wall.
Both are forms of infrared heating and both can deliver lower energy costs and a more comfortable indoor environment, without draughts, dust circulation or humidity problems. Not all infrared heaters are equal, though. Some designs are far more efficient than others, and radiant systems do require an initial investment in installation.
Quick facts
Many infrared heaters offer remote control, programmable settings and Wi-Fi connectivity.
Infrared heating panels warm objects and people in a room directly, bypassing the air. Operating in the far-infrared spectrum, they gently warm surfaces and objects with long electromagnetic waves that do not penetrate the skin.
Infrared is often combined with other energy-efficient technologies such as insulation and solar. Some panels, including our PowerBoard units, run on DC power, which removes the need for an inverter when they are paired with solar panels.
The costs of installation
Installation costs vary. The size of the space matters most, since larger rooms need more heaters and longer installation. The type of heater matters too, as specifications and features differ.
In general, though, installing infrared heating is not expensive. Because it needs no complicated ductwork or plumbing, the up-front cost is lower than for most alternatives.
Infrared is also a low-maintenance system with minimal servicing needs across its life, which saves on maintenance and repair. Most manufacturers offer warranties on their products, so if an essential component is defective it is replaced free of charge.
Weighing installation against long-term savings
While you spend at installation, the system pays back over years in reduced energy expenditure and better comfort.
How that pays back depends on the building far more than on the heater. A well insulated house needs very little heat in the first place, so the saving is small in absolute terms but the installation is small too. A poorly insulated house needs a lot of heat whatever the source. The honest way to look at it is to put your own floor area and building standard into the energy estimator on the floor heating page and read the kilowatt hours, then apply your own tariff. That gives you a number for your building rather than an industry average for somebody else’s.
It helps to think of infrared heating as an investment rather than an expense, in the same way you would think about any durable good bought for long-term use. As the technology continues to advance it deserves consideration by anyone renovating or building.
Factors that affect efficiency
Room layout and line of sight. Be mindful of placement so that panels are not obstructed by slanted walls or suspended fixtures such as chandeliers. Clear, unobstructed areas give the best result.
Panel placement. Take account of heat losses from surrounding surfaces. Prioritise positions near facades and windows, and avoid installing directly opposite windows, which reduces efficiency.
Usage patterns. Infrared heaters warm objects and people within their line of sight, so the level of occupancy in a room affects how efficiently they work. Consider this when deciding how many panels a room needs.
Pros: energy and cost savings
Energy and cost savings sit at the top of the list of benefits, and they have reshaped how we think about warmth in our homes and workplaces.
Most conventional systems heat the air first and rely on that air to carry heat to you. Hot air stratifies at the ceiling, and it leaves through every gap, vent and opened door. Infrared removes that carrier: the energy is absorbed by the surfaces and the people in the room.
The practical effect is that the thermostat can come down. On the widely used European figure of about 6% less heating energy per degree, the two to three degrees most occupants find they can give up works out at roughly 12 to 18% less energy for the same sensation of warmth. That is a real saving, and it is a much more defensible one than the fifty and seventy per cent figures that circulate in infrared marketing.
Assessing potential yearly savings
Any yearly figure depends on three things: how much heat your building loses, how you run the system, and what you pay per kilowatt hour. We will not put a single number on it, because a number that is true for a 1950s solid-wall house is meaningless for a passive house.
What we can give you is the consumption. Our estimator asks for the floor area and the building standard, then returns kilowatt hours per season and per day for two ways of running the system, round-the-clock temperature control and roughly ten hours a day. Multiply by your tariff and you have your own answer. Expect around ten per cent either side of it, because climate, exposure, glazing and occupancy all move the result.
An underrated benefit is that radiant heat is targeted at the rooms and surfaces you use, so nothing is spent conditioning air in spaces nobody occupies.
Some critics argue infrared offers no saving against natural gas, which they say gives lower utility bills. That argument does not account for how gas systems operate: they heat large volumes of air and lose much of it through ventilation. It is like driving with the engine racing and never reaching the motorway. You burn the fuel and you get there eventually, but the process is not efficient.
A real energy consumption case study
Rather than ask you to take our word for it, we tracked one of our PowerBoard units in real time over a week.
In a real usage scenario from a customer in Austria, we monitored the system through the week of 1 to 7 January 2021. The heated area covered 130 square metres. Across the period the average outdoor temperature was 1.08 °C while the indoor temperature held at a comfortable 23.5 °C, which is warmer than most households run, and the system was left in continuous temperature control rather than being scheduled.
Potential cons of infrared heating
There are drawbacks that should not be overlooked. Infrared may not provide enough warmth on its own in homes with very high ceilings, which can mean supplementary heat sources and a less compelling economic case than first anticipated.
Furniture or objects blocking the path of the infrared will reduce efficiency, so placement needs care.
In poorly insulated rooms, or where cold air infiltrates, the system can struggle to deliver the expected warmth quickly. It is the same as the still, cold day where the sun warms you until the wind picks up and the chill factor takes over.
These disadvantages are real, but in most cases they are outweighed by the benefits. Many people find that saving on energy bills is worth a small constraint on furniture placement.
Final words
The choice to embrace infrared heating offers a promising blend of comfort and cost efficiency. It delivers sun-like warmth efficiently and directly, which makes it a genuine alternative to traditional methods.
Cost effectiveness is the compelling part. It reduces energy consumption, which shows up on monthly bills, and its targeted approach minimises heat lost through empty space and walls.
Infrared heating has limitations, as every product does, but its potential for energy and cost savings, coupled with the comfort it provides, makes it a serious choice for anyone seeking efficient and cosy heating. Viewed as an investment in long-term comfort and environmental impact, the initial cost is usually justified by what follows.
Does lifespan affect cost effectiveness?
Yes. Infrared heaters generally last longer than traditional heating systems thanks to durable construction and efficient technology. A longer life spreads the initial investment over more years, lowering the annual cost, and reduces the need for replacement or repair.
Does the size of the space matter?
Larger spaces need more energy, which can mean higher costs. But because infrared emits heat directly to objects and people rather than heating the air, the approach stays efficient regardless of size. Larger spaces need more heaters up front, but the overall cost effectiveness remains high.
How much energy can be saved?
Infrared heat reaches people and surfaces directly, so the same comfort arrives at a lower air temperature, typically two to three degrees lower. At roughly 6% less heating energy per degree, that is in the order of 12 to 18%. Easy zoning adds to it, because you heat the rooms you use rather than the whole building. The size of the saving in your own case depends on the building, which is what the estimator on our system pages is for.
