Cologne. Natural gas is becoming more and more expensive. At the end of October, the wholesale price for European natural gas rose to over 100 euros per megawatt hour. This means that it has more than tripled compared to February before the start of the Iran war. At the same time, German gas storage facilities are still unusually empty. If demand increases significantly in winter, prices are likely to rise further. This raises the question of alternatives to gas heating.
Many experts consider electricity to be a future-proof choice because although the price of electricity depends partly on the price of gas, renewable energies dampen the effect.
Anyone who wants to heat with electricity has a choice: Heat pumps are considered a perfect solution, but are still comparatively expensive to purchase. Infrared heaters are significantly cheaper.
The question therefore arises: Is such direct electricity heating sufficient in certain cases? The Handelsblatt interviewed experts and compared the costs of acquisition and operation.
Timo Leukefeld, energy expert and self-employed building planner in Freiberg, sees many advantages of direct electricity heating. In his opinion, in certain cases they can even be economically superior to heat pumps. “Infrared heating in particular is virtually unbeatable in new buildings and in energy-efficiently renovated existing buildings,” says Leukefeld.
The panels, which can be easily attached to ceilings or walls, convert electricity directly into heat - into infrared radiation, which warms surfaces and people in the room. According to his own statements, engineer Leukefeld has so far planned 1,800 energy self-sufficient residential units with infrared heating.
When comparing classic convection heaters, which warm the room air, and infrared heaters, his choice clearly falls on the latter. Infrared heaters are “much more comfortable and can be regulated more quickly,” says Leukefeld. A high proportion of radiation creates a pleasant warmth, “just like sunlight or from a tiled stove”.
According to the engineer, unlike other heating technologies, the infrared radiation creates neither drafts nor dust. This is helpful for allergy sufferers. The humidity also remains higher than in rooms with conventional radiators, which residents find pleasant.
Martin Brandis, energy expert at the consumer advice center's energy advisory service, is, however, critical of direct electricity heating. He clearly recommends the heat pump as an electricity-powered heating technology and points out the power consumption of the various systems. “A heat pump is much more efficient than direct electric heating,” says the consumer advocate. “This makes it cheaper to operate.”
In addition: “You can use the heat pump almost anywhere without having to make extensive modifications to the building,” says Brandis. In newly built single- and two-family houses, the heat pump is already the dominant heating technology at 78 percent, shows the trend barometer of the Federal Association of the Energy and Water Industry (BDEW) for 2025. In newly built multi-family houses, its share is 51 percent. However, so far only 4.5 percent of existing apartments are heated with a heat pump - and the trend is rising.
In operation, the heat pump clearly wins when comparing costs. Direct electric heating generates around one kilowatt hour (kWh) of thermal energy from one kilowatt hour of electricity. According to the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems, a heat pump creates three to five kWh of thermal energy, depending on the model.
Assume that a newly built single-family home with 150 square meters of living space has a heating energy requirement of 6,000 kWh per year. According to the rule of thumb, a heat pump would require a maximum of 2,000 kWh of electricity to cover this demand. With infrared heating, consumption would be 6,000 kWh. At the current electricity price of around 38 cents per kWh, the heat pump would result in electricity costs of 760 euros, while infrared heating would cost 2,280 euros.
In an unrenovated old building that is less efficient to heat, the difference is even greater: with an annual consumption of 6,000 kWh for a heat pump and 18,000 kWh for an infrared heater, electricity costs would be 2,280 euros and 6,840 euros, respectively. Anyone who generates electricity themselves with a photovoltaic system can significantly reduce the operating costs for both forms of heating.
Infrared heating has an advantage when it comes to investment costs. According to engineer Leukefeld, installing an infrared heater for the exemplary 150 square meter single-family home costs around 12,000 euros. According to his calculations, a heat pump would cost 45,000 euros. The consumer advice center counters this: Depending on the type and design, a heat pump can be had for as little as 30,000 euros.
For existing buildings, the state subsidizes the conversion to a heat pump with 30 to 80 percent of the eligible costs of a maximum of 28,000 euros per single-family home. This funding does not exist for direct electricity heating. The conclusion of the consumer advice center is therefore: a heat pump is cheaper in the long run for existing buildings, and it can also be the better choice for new buildings.
But costs aren't everything. “Infrared heaters last three times as long as a heat pump and are maintenance-free,” says Leukefeld. In addition, direct electric heaters work separately. This means: "If an electric heater breaks down in a room, only one room can no longer be heated. But if the heat pump, gas furnace or district heating unit in the basement fails, the entire house is cold - and landlords risk rent reductions."
But be careful: Landlords are not allowed to install direct electricity heating in every house, for example if the thermal insulation is too low. This is regulated by Section 46 of the Building Modernization Act. We therefore recommend that you seek advice from a specialist company or an energy consultant.
