Most infrared heating brands sell their panels as a miracle solution: supposedly 80% cheaper than any other heating system, supposedly right for every room and every building. That's not true — and at SunWave we believe honest information is worth more than a sales-friendly slogan. Infrared heating is an excellent technology for certain applications and the wrong choice for others. This article lists the real disadvantages of infrared heating — without sugar-coating — and shows where these downsides genuinely matter, and where they barely register.
Disadvantage 1: Higher running cost per kilowatt-hour than a heat pump
This is the most important point, so we lead with it: an infrared panel converts electrical energy into heat at close to 1:1 — 1 kWh of electricity becomes roughly 1 kWh of heat. A modern heat pump, by contrast, achieves a seasonal coefficient of performance (COP) of around 3 to 4: it extracts additional heat from the surrounding air, ground or water, delivering 3 to 4 kWh of heat from that same 1 kWh of electricity. At CHF 0.28/kWh, that means heating an entire house continuously with infrared costs 3 to 4 times more than the same amount of heat from a heat pump.
This is physics, not a marketing question — and it's exactly why we consider some competitors' old "80% savings" claims misleading. Where this disadvantage barely registers: heating individual rooms for a few hours a day, where total costs stay low because overall energy use is small.
Disadvantage 2: Heat stays local — no automatic distribution system
A SunWave Ceramica panel warms people, furniture and walls in its direct line of sight through radiation — similar to sunlight through a window. But there's no distribution system that automatically carries that heat into other rooms or through closed doors, the way a water-based system with radiators or underfloor heating does. Anyone wanting to heat an entire multi-room building evenly needs a panel in each room.
For many use cases, that's not a drawback at all — it's the core advantage: you heat only the rooms you actually use, without wasting energy on empty rooms, an effect that often offsets the higher cost per kWh in the total bill.
Disadvantage 3: Regulatory limits without the solar exception
Since January 2025, Switzerland's Climate Protection Act (KIG) has been in force, implemented through the cantonal MuKEn 2025 rules. Fixed electric resistance heaters — which include infrared panels when used as a building's sole primary heating system — fall under the same phased restrictions as electric storage heaters. One exception applies: the solar exception. If a photovoltaic system generates at least as much electricity as the heating consumes annually (plus a 10% safety margin), infrared heating remains fully compliant even as a primary system.
For supplementing an existing heating system — for example as zone heating alongside a heat pump or gas boiler — these restrictions don't apply, since the building already has a compliant primary system. We explain the full legal picture in our article Electric Heating Ban in Switzerland: What's Still Allowed?
Important: This restriction applies to a building's sole primary heating system without the solar exception. As a supplementary or zone heating alongside an existing, compliant heating system, infrared panels are fully permitted — which covers the large majority of SunWave customers.
Disadvantage 4: No cooling function
A heat pump can often run in reverse and provide cooling in summer. An infrared panel only heats — there is no cooling function. For households looking for a single system that does both, a heat pump is the more natural choice. For most Swiss homes, where active cooling is rarely used anyway, this point rarely matters in practice.
Disadvantage 5: Warm-up speed is fast, but range is limited
A SunWave Ceramica panel reaches its operating temperature of around 67°C (TU Dresden, October 2022) within minutes — far faster than a sluggish system with a large water buffer. But radiant heat works primarily within the panel's direct line of sight, with intensity decreasing over distance. In very large, open spaces (halls or expansive lofts), several smaller panels are often more sensible than one large unit — which makes planning slightly more involved than with a conventional convection heater.
Disadvantage 6: Per-panel cost can add up across many rooms
At CHF 550 per panel (650W, including WiFi thermostat), the individual investment is low. But for a large building with ten or more rooms converted entirely to infrared, the total can approach the cost of a smaller heat pump system — even without the cost of pipework, radiators or floor construction. For fully equipping very large buildings, it's always worth a direct cost comparison of both options.
The honest comparison: is infrared right for your situation?
Instead of blanket promises, the table below shows where infrared genuinely is the right choice — and where it isn't. This table reflects the same honest positioning featured on sunwaveswitzerland.com.
| Your situation | Infrared a good fit? |
|---|---|
| Warming one or two specific rooms | ✓ Excellent |
| Bathroom, home office or occasional room | ✓ Excellent |
| Pairing with solar PV (self-consumption & solar exception) | ✓ Strong |
| Holiday home or mountain chalet used intermittently | ✓ Strong |
| Replacing the whole-home heating system in a large, continuously occupied building | ⚠ Usually a heat pump is the better tool |
| Trying to undercut an existing heat pump on running cost | ✗ Won't happen — heat pumps deliver more heat per kWh |
We'd rather sell you two panels that are perfect for your cold rooms than one heating system that's wrong for your house. If a heat pump is what you need, we'll say so.
Infrared vs. heat pump: the key differences at a glance
| Criterion | Infrared panel | Heat pump |
|---|---|---|
| Upfront cost | from CHF 550 / panel | CHF 30,000–40,000 |
| Running cost per kWh of heat | higher (COP ≈ 1) | lower (COP ≈ 3–4) |
| Installation effort | power outlet, no construction | building & plumbing work required |
| Warm-up time | a few minutes | several hours (slow system) |
| Suitable as sole primary heating (large, no PV) | restricted (KIG/MuKEn) | yes, regulatorily straightforward |
| Suitable for single rooms & zone heating | ideal | oversized |
| Cooling function in summer | no | yes, with reversible models |
When these "disadvantages" become advantages
Most of the points above aren't universal weaknesses — they're characteristics that flip into advantages in the right situation:
Higher cost per kWh, but very low total consumption: if you only heat a home office or bathroom for 2–4 hours a day, your total bill stays low in absolute terms — even at a higher per-kWh cost than a heat pump.
Local heat instead of a distribution system: this is exactly what lets you heat only the rooms you use and keep empty rooms cooler — a direct energy-saving effect that partly offsets the higher per-kWh cost.
Regulatory limits as primary heating: if you already have a heat pump or gas boiler as your primary system (over 50% of Swiss buildings are still fossil-heated), you use infrared as a supplement — and the KIG/MuKEn restrictions on primary systems don't apply at all.
Real-world example: A holiday chalet in Valais is used on 30–40 weekends a year. A whole-building heat pump would sit idle most days, or keep the building at a low frost-protection temperature. Three SunWave Ceramica panels in the living room, bedroom and bathroom heat up to comfortable temperature within minutes of arrival — without the running costs and complexity of a central system for a rarely used building.
Conclusion: the right tool for the right job
Infrared heating isn't a universal solution — and it doesn't need to be. The honest balance sheet: higher cost per kWh in continuous use, no automatic distribution system, regulatory limits as a sole primary system without solar, and no cooling function. Against that: an entry price of CHF 550, zero construction work, warm-up in minutes, pristine air quality (Fraunhofer WKI), and an ideal fit for single rooms, bathrooms, home offices and holiday homes. Knowing these strengths and limits leads to the right decision — whether that's for infrared, against it, or a combination of both systems.
Frequently Asked Questions
What are the biggest disadvantages of infrared heating?
Two points matter most. First, an infrared panel converts electricity to heat at roughly 1:1, while a heat pump uses the same electricity to extract additional ambient heat and deliver three to four times as much usable warmth — so for continuous whole-building use, a heat pump is cheaper to run. Second, each panel radiates heat locally; there is no distribution system that automatically warms every room in a building. For targeted, flexible warmth in individual rooms these are often non-issues — for heating an entire, continuously occupied house, they matter.
Is infrared heating a good choice as a primary heating system?
In most cases, a heat pump is the more economical and regulatorily simpler choice for a continuously heated building. However, infrared heating can remain fully compliant with Switzerland's Climate Protection Act (KIG) and the cantonal MuKEn 2025 rules as a primary heating system under the solar exception — if a photovoltaic system generates at least as much electricity as the heating consumes annually, plus a 10% safety margin. For small, well-insulated apartments, holiday homes used intermittently, or individual floors, infrared can also work as a practical primary heat source even without solar — there's no one-size-fits-all answer; it depends on the building, usage pattern and canton.
Is infrared heating more expensive to run than a heat pump?
Per kilowatt-hour of delivered heat: generally yes. A modern heat pump achieves a seasonal coefficient of performance (COP) of around 3 to 4 — 1 kWh of electricity becomes 3 to 4 kWh of heat. An infrared panel delivers around 1 kWh of heat from 1 kWh of electricity. For continuous whole-house operation, that difference adds up. The picture changes for single-room or zone heating: if only the room you're actually using is heated for a few hours a day, the total bill can come out lower than running a heat pump that keeps an entire house at temperature — on top of the far lower upfront cost (CHF 550 per panel versus CHF 30,000+ for a central heat pump).
Which rooms or buildings are not a good fit for infrared heating?
Infrared is a weaker fit for large, poorly insulated buildings that need continuous full heating throughout the season — a heat pump is usually the more economical choice there. If the primary goal is to undercut an existing heat pump's running costs, an additional infrared panel won't achieve that. For individual rooms, bathrooms, home offices, intermittently used holiday homes, or as a comfort add-on alongside a heat pump, infrared is an excellent fit.
Is infrared heating worth it despite these downsides?
For the right application, yes, clearly. These downsides mainly apply to using infrared as a 1:1 replacement for a central whole-building heating system. For targeted warmth in individual rooms, fast warm-up, silent operation, clean air (Fraunhofer WKI measured 0.043 mg/m³ TVOC — 23 times below the limit), and an entry price of CHF 550 with no structural work, a SunWave Ceramica panel offers a value proposition no central heating system can match. We'd rather sell you two panels that are perfect for your cold rooms than one heating system that's wrong for your house.
The right tool for the right rooms
The SunWave Ceramica panel: 650W, 6mm fine porcelain stoneware, CE-certified, independently tested by Fraunhofer WKI, TU Dresden and Labor S.A. From CHF 550, 5-year warranty. We'll tell you honestly whether it's right for your space.
View the SunWave Ceramica Panel →