We are chucking our oil boiler and rads for whole house IR heating in Ireland...and I can't get it done fast enough! Have PV solar and battery to help offset higher winter electrical costs...even though it is not a "new" technology MANY people have never heard of it here in Ireland. If you have not experienced it first-hand, it is great and works well for our temperate climate in SW Ireland...spent 3,000 euro last year on heating oil and don't see it getting any cheaper. Time to get with the future :)
Interesting Kevin. Whereabouts on the island are you. I’ve long argued that air source isn’t suitable in bits of Ireland due to the moisture laden air.
@@hughmarcus1 We are in Schull - looks like certain brands of air source are much better at handling the salty sea air/mist but still require routine maintenance to eyeball how things are faring as they age. For us, the massive expense of a2w did not make sense, and the complicated interfaces and such seemed like a disaster if I had to leave home and the wife was here by herself...we are originally from Texas and have spent the last year researching heating systems here, and it's so complicated! I do like mini-split systems, had them in the states and they worked great (cooling in the summer and heating in the winter). But we are going to try IR panels first, then if need be we would install a few mini-split systems in the rooms we feel need more.
Interesting and compares well to a heat pump install from an initial comparison. The main problem is running costs. Looking over 15 years and using the absolute worst efficiency of 2:1 for a heat pump the IR will double my running costs. As I do get a 3:1 efficiency it will triple my running costs. It is though a really good swap for gas boilers where heatpumps are too difficult to install. Electrification is the future, it's carbon intensity will reduce over time and IR would work well with solar/battery storage. Well done Jigsaw.
There is a difference between an air heating system, what an heat pump would be usually and a radiating heating system. A radiating system can be much more localised and other surfaces that absob the radiation wil also itself start radiating. And with radiated heat the temperature of the air can be kept substantially lower because the radiation feels a lot warmer. Like how sitting next to a water radiator or an open fire makes you feel the heat comming off it even if the surrounding air is colder.
Can you do a total cost comparison of the heating types otherwise it is difficult to compare eg: IR vs heat pump etc. The product looks simple but I’m more interested in what heating system is the most efficient at getting the same result over the longer term. Thanks
That study is being done. However, a lot of the population cannot have heat pumps. Infrared fairs very well against other forms of electric heating, 50% quicker and 50% cheaper. This was a 800watt panel against a 2 kilowatt convection heater.
@@glennbillington4879 OK. Perhaps a more though comparison after your study plus where to get them. I am in London. Do that I will email it to my energy company Ecotricity.
This must be the key question. It's going to be difficult to answer because it depends on the use case specifics. It would be good to see some use cases in details.
The only cost comparison that matters is getting a quote for installation with a proposed design for each system (or mix of systems) that you want to consider. Any heating and cooling technology can be applied through design effort in many different ways to a given house. There is no study that gives you “the answer” for your house. For my house IR is not effective relative to heat pump except in the bathrooms - that’s not in any study either. Find a quality designer and installers and make a plan.
If you have an EV, you are probably on a time of use tariff. Octupus Go is close to 40p peak, but 8p off peak - god knows what the peak rate is going to be next year. The elephant in the room with any electric heating is the cost to run at peak rate. A normal house is already using 10-12kWh per day and this system will add an estimated 4kwh (assuming 1hour of usage of 4x1000W panels) - this is my guesses I could be incorrect. Most electric heating really does need solar plus battery - a common battery size now would be 8kWh and in the winter you might be lucky to generate 4kWh per day. The other bottleneck could be the inverter. If you have all the panels on at the same time, the inverter might not handle it - if the oven is on too, then you really start paying!
I can see this being useful for businesses. I have rooms that are used sporadically throughout the day, and staff who only know how to turn heating on and thermostats up. (Not off or down). Also in retail with the shop door opening all day long, if you are heating the people and not the air, could work well. Anyone have experience of this in retail?
The guy himself said the tech has been around decades, the difference is a larger panel to emit the same amount of IR heat can have a lower surface temperature (ie it doesnt glow! So sure the packaging is different to the old fashioned bar heaters, but the tech is the same and if you watch the video ,he says this. Best position for these is on the ceiling though so it heats the floor, making the system work a bit li kik e underfloor heating, ie more efficient. You would obviously be crazy to run these on peak , day rate electric, but again as they say in the video it works best if run off PV and battery storage. There are different solutions for different people and different scenarios ...
When my old gas boiler finally packs in, I'm seriously considering switching to IR heaters. Hopefully by then the price will have come down a bit too. I can't wait to be rid of the following: *Paying for regular service visits from a gas safe engineer *Boiler breaking down when you least expect it *The cost of buying and fitting replacement parts for the boiler *Water pipes running all over the house that could potentially leak *Bleeding the radiators *Radiators taking up space and having to lay furniture out so they don't block them *Paying for gas bills - I'd rather have a single electric bill and not have to pay the daily standing charge for having gas even if I don't use any
Screwfix currently have 1kw ones I stock for £12.99 The looks may not look the best, but are as efficient and you can decide if you like the heat, and the leccy bills before spending £000s.
IR is more useful for supplementally heating people, so that the room's temp can lowered. So it possible to just buy one IR heater and experiment with it to see how effective it can be for "you", while your still using your old gas boiler. But also consider a radiator based Heat Pump (which has tax advantages too) when it time to replace the boiler. Since it will be far more efficient for heating "rooms". HP vs IR heating, have different pros and cons. Good luck....
Be careful Daniel... last time I looked at my bill gas was 1/6 th the price of electricity per kw/h. If you don't need a lot of heat they could work for sure, but if you are like most of us in the UK and use a lot of heating in the winter you'll need to look elsewhere I fear...
A heat pump would cost a little bit more but you'd probably save the difference in a couple of years. Trouble with great pumps is they are a complicated machine whereas this system should be fit and forget.
Heat pump COP is not all it’s claimed to be. The COP figures do not come from real life testing and the COP is often closer to 1:1 An independent study - commissioned by BEIS but written by Cambridge Architectural Research - investigated cost-optimal ways to install electric heating, including infra-red heating, and energy efficiency measures across a 12 housing archetypes, representing 90% of Britain’s 28 million homes. The study found that: • The total lifetime costs (capital + operating) of infrared heating were found to be competitive, although not cost-optimal in some housing types. • There were only small differences in costs over 15 years between low- or high-temperature heat pumps, air-to-air heat pumps, infrared or storage radiators. • Assuming a longer product lifespan (e.g. >20 years) for electric storage heaters and infrared heaters made heat pumps less attractive over the total period of ownership - as heat pumps were assumed to be replaced more frequently.
@@matthewwakeham2206 quality pumps keep save more than enough to pay for repairs and some extra. Heat pumps will get smarter too as well as include cooling feature and or replace boiler (hot tap water). What people chose may vary on their priority, long term saving - features - initial cost - planet friendly.
@@jigsaw.Infrared sorry Jigsaw, it's outrageous that you're misrepresenting the BEIS report like that - heat pumps were shown to be the most cost effective solution over 15 years and that would only increase.
@@glennbillington4879 1:1 'efficiency' where heat energy is concerned, is nowhere near good enough if we are going to have any chance of limiting the damage by the climate change fire we are fuelling with bad energy choices. We need to reduce energy consumption, firstly via better insulation, and secondly by harnessing freely available natural resources with combined Heat Pump and PV technology for example. Snake oil products accelerate global warming.
Get the idea, but from what I remember of previous infrared heaters, is like standing in front of a coal fire in the old days. Your body facing the fire is warm or hot, but the side of your body opposite the heater is cooler and feels even colder because of the extreme difference?
That is why these are bigger and use less wattage. The old ones used halgen bulbs which concentrated a huge amount of heat comming from a very small area. This sends less heat from a much larger area making it more moderate and comfertable. This would more be like sitting in the sun on a early spring day. Nice and comfertable in the sun, but chilly in the shade. That is the best way to discribe it i think.
Been thinking of getting something like this for a while, as my flat has a crappy E7 storage heater, an old gas fire and frost protection heater for when I'm not there. Handy information.
@@glennbillington What does this 'not heating air' mean? Of course it's heating the air. It's a resistive heater embedded in ceramic. Very inefficient. There are so many better solutions.
@@OAK-808 the heat is emitted as radiation. Not convection. A tiny proportion of the heat is emitted as waste heat in convection, the vast majority heats you directly, using infrared. Heatpumps by comparison heat the room via traditional wet convection radiators. Resulting in wasted energy as the room air must be heated in order for the heat pump to transfer heat to you the individual.
I think you should qualify it by saying that it’s far infrared as opposed to near infrared. so it’s longer wavelength, then a bar heater and more conducive to heating nearby surfaces
These are fairly popular in Europe but the efficiency is max 100% as it's a resistance heater. Never going to as efficient as a heat pump. Can we have some reviews of off the shelf reversible air conditioner units as cheap heating systems.
This is the issue we encounter. Heat pumps are not appropriate in all cases. There needs to be some alternative and this is another form of heating. If you use solar and battery they are on a par but again, not always appropriate.
Agreed. It's weird than an EV show would not get it: the resistance heater in my 2016 e-Golf is _far_ less efficient than the heat pumps in... just about every new EV out there. EV people have known this since the LEAF. There's probably a place for these IR heaters but if it's efficiency we're after -- and we are! -- heat pumps are the way to go.
@@glennbillington4879 that surely isn't true. Why would having a battery and solar make a difference. Solar on its one provides electricity when it typically isn't needed for heating. Solar plus battery provides the flexibility to provide electricity when it is needed. Both heat pumps and your panels would make use of that flexibility. By heat pumps are 200-300% efficient and your panels are at most 100% efficient. I think your panels can only be more efficient to heat a small part of a large open space or to provide bursts of heat in a space that is usually unoccupied. Solar + battery is irrelevant to the question of heat pump vs IR panels it's basic physics.
You need a lot less heat with a radiator. You don't need to heat entire rooms and air temperature can be substantially lower to feel equally comfertable with radiated heat compared to a space that is just heated by air. Instead of heating a complete space continually to a higher temperature you can use a single panel to just have the heat radiate onto you where you are sitting. Over the dinner table or over the sofa or your desk etc.
@@xchopp resistive heaters heat air. Radiators radiate heat onto you. For a car comparison a radiating heater is more like the seat heating in your car. With that on you can keep the cabin temperature lower and be equally comfertable still. Which is what is recomended for ev's. And this is also resistive heating but is still a more efficient way to reach the exact same comfort level..
We found that the EPC got a worse rating than gas warm air heating when kitting out a small flat with similar panels. We suspect that was down to the software not catering for this form of heating and the assessor ticking the box for storage heating. However, there is no way of knowing unless you’re an assessor.
Yeah, heating the last bit only when needed is great idea, but there's still not a very practical simple way to do that, that is also generally and easily applicable. You can feel the instant warmth from an IR heater, but until the air is also warm you will still be mostly cold. Some people is happy with that, most will not be, in real life. Warming up objects, like sofas, and beds, takes a lot of time to do safely with IR, a lot of time means you use a lot of power for a long time. In reality this system is unlikely to save much energy compared to heating to the desired temperature all the time using a heat pump for most people. Also, IR heaters is a common cheap product, putting covers on them to make them look better is a HUGE disadvantage if you want to be able to heat up when and where you need it. It's a bit similar to having a towel warmer, you could arge that you can shower in colder water if your towel is warm, and thereby save energy, but most people won't do that. The part about IR being so natural, and that our bodies is evolved to use that, is complete and utterly nonsense. IR is not more natural than convection, and it doesn't matter. Personally, I'm a mammal, and our bodies has evolved to be able to keep the temperature with food as the source of energy. Radiators in "wet" systems also emit IR for that matter. Also, being heated on one side, and cold on the other is not what most people consider being comfortable, not even if the average temperature the skin experiences is a comfortable temperature, it's about actual comfort, not statistics. Preventing mould (and mildew) by keeping a lower general temperature, and using IR heaters specifically when and where needed just does not work, no, absolutely not, no way. You can reduce the risk of mould somewhat, on the surfaces that get hit by IR of relevant intensity, other areas will have a HIGHER than normal probability of getting mould and mildew, all else equal. Mould typically grows in places that wouldn't be exposed to significant intensity of IR from such heaters, unless heaters are installed for that purpose, instead of trying to creating comfort. It works like this, increasing the temperature of air makes the relative humidity lower, thereby reducing the chance of creating areas with favorable environment for mould and mildew, as they "like" humidity. A lower general temperature, even with temporary and local "hotspots" doesn't reduce general humidity as much, and thereby is the risk of getting mould increased, not decreased. Another problem is that the intensity of IR is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source, technically from a point source, and their emitters are better than that in this regard, but still, you'd need huge emitters to create even exposure, to create thermal comfort comparable to just having a comfortable ambient temperature. Heating of the floor is extremely slow and inefficient, unless the emitters are very close to floor, or almost as big as the floor, or of course, focused on the floor. Claims that their emitters are more efficient than other heaters is just not true. Technically, resistive heaters, which their IR heaters are, are 100% efficient, but, as concentrated high temperature radiators increase losses, mostly due to the high temperatures, they're not generally considered to have a COP (coefficient of performance) of 1, really, but a bit lower than 1. While AC splits can have an average COP of 4, and they can heat the air to a comfortable temperature, quite quickly if dimensioned for it, not just fairly quickly go from to cold to "statistical comfort". They say their claimed superior efficiency is "not a wild claim, it's scientific fact backed by independent study." A single "independent" study, means nothing, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and their claim is extraordinary, their "evidence" is not. IR heaters are not generally considered a new technology, the idea that they're more efficient isn't generally accepted, because that idea is simply not true. And covering them up in order to make them look nicer makes them worse than usual, especially that instant heat part. In order to have thermal comfort where you go, when you get there someone or something needs to be able to predict where you are going, otherwise the idea doesn't work, until your still at one place for a longer period, or, the general area has been heated up, and then you're back on square one, having wasted a lot of electricity on heating the whole area with very inefficient resistive heating.
Your opinion is noted and you have obviously bought the cheaper version or seen the cheap imports into the UK. It's like buying a car, you get what you pay for. Th recent testing and University studies are proving that infrared is quicker and half the cost to run than other forms of electric heating. Have you seen the studies?
Sounds interesting Robert, but as an ex-teacher I can't let you get away with descibing the three heaters next to you as "square things"... they are very definitely "rectangular"...
I really like the idea of this, panels up out of the way, hidden behind mirrors or pictures, and easier to maintain then a full wet system. excellent stuff.
I wonder if any 'cost over 10-year lifetimes' comparison studies have been conducted, due to the huge disparities between the upfront costs of heat pumps (or gas boilers) versus infrared heating. Considering infrared has a fraction of the upfront cost, and somewhat higher running costs (the difference would be minimised as these infrared panels need near-zero maintenance, no significant installation/servicing/repairs/part replacements etc typically), my guess would be that smaller households would save money over 10 years by buying infrared panels whereas larger households would save money with gas boilers and heat pumps.
No: it's the wrong wavelength of IR light. IR remotes operate in the near-IR, just beyond the red end of the visible region of the spectrum (i.e., ~0.7 - 1.0 µm). These panels -- and any other resistive electric heater, they are all "IR" heaters, even those old bar heaters -- all operate in the longwave part of the IR region (their website says 6 - 10 µm).
Nice implementation of old technology. Only problem currently, is that mains gas is 4p per kWh and electricity is 20p per kWh. Modern gas boilers claim 90 - 95% efficiency (not including pipework losses) and while I suspect these panels will beat that, they will still be much more expensive to run.
Good point Stuart but gas is not going to be implemented after 2025. Also, there is a massive number of people across the UK who cannot use gas or heatpumps and need something which is more economical than everyday storage heaters.
Ok, lots of opinions and very little fact in the comments. I've used these units (not this brand, they are readily available and have been for years), and they do indeed work, but they produce a subtle heat that produces what I call a "zone of warm" around the front of the heater. They heat objects directly, which includes people, but they heat you slowly, you don't really feel it until you realise that you are warm, and you can even overheat in front of one of these. But, a watt is a watt, and a 1200W FIR panel heater uses the same amount of electricity as any other 1200W uncontrolled heater. They just work more effectively by heating you, not all the air in the room, so you need a less powerful heater to do the same job as a space heater. All radiant heaters are best suited to areas where there is a lot of air loss, such as a poorly sealed home, or where there are huge volumes of air, such as a workshop, gym etc. You position them directly next to or above the populated areas in the room and they heat the people and immediate surrounding area without having to heat vast volumes of air. So, they have their uses, but they have their limitations. They are slow to heat up, so not ideal for bathrooms, and if you have more than one or two, you will really see it on your electricity bill. So, it's horses for courses, really, if you have a requirement these might fit, try one. One of our organisation members wrote about his experiences with these at netzeroemissions.net/2016/10/03/far-infrared-heating-panels-beautiful-heat-low-energy/ and a followup at netzeroemissions.net/2017/04/14/more-work-on-far-infrared-fir-heating/ (download the docs there, there's lots of info). But, I have to agree with others here, this is nothing more than advertorial and FC has really lost a lot of credibility here, to the point where I might just unsub and be done with them. Transport Evolved and the Electric Viking do much better reporting on EVs anyway, although FC used to be excellent, it all just seems to have gone downhill in recent months.
This would be nice to have in my bathroom instead of in floor radiant heating. I imagine it would heat the bathroom up very quickly for the cold morning early wake up.
Can a custom picture be printed on the IR heater, be ordered? Such as from a digital photo. Or is stock prints available? Seem like any added cost would attract higher end customers, who want greater customization options IMHO. Or Is it available as part of an AR Mirror? Such as for dressing rooms at high end fashion shops. For example the shop just got in bathing suits, while its raining and cool that day. But the AR Mirror can show the customer in one the bathing suits on a sunny beach, while IR simulates the feeling of the sun on her skin. Or for a workout AR Mirror, for those who want be warmed for therapeutic purposes. In gym or at home. To warm their muscles right before or after a workout. Also afterwards it could still be used as an IR heater too, And the AR function could display HVAC and other data (or possibly for videos too?). Just a few random thoughts on how the tech could be used. Good Luck....
It has thin wires which get hot when electricity is put through them. Hot enough to glow and emit infrared. Like the fellow said, it's ridiculously simple.
Well its works for sure on new houses- but what about old old houses. Mine as example 1891. And what about heating water when that normaly is done by a stoker.
Depends how much you pay for electricity. They have an 800 Watt version that will cost the price of kWh X 0.8, so if your cost is 10 cents per kWh, then it's 8 cents for an hour. Not at all cheaper than a heat pump. In fact resistive heating is well known as the most inefficient way to produce heat from electricity. But cheap to buy and convenient to install. I hate resistive heating.
I wonder if any 'cost over 10-year lifetimes' comparison studies have been conducted, due to the huge disparities between the upfront costs of heat pumps (or gas boilers) versus infrared heating. Considering infrared has a fraction of the upfront cost, and somewhat higher running costs (the difference would be minimised as these infrared panels need near-zero maintenance, no significant installation/servicing/repairs/part replacements etc typically), my guess would be that smaller households would save money over 10 years by buying infrared panels whereas larger households would save money with gas boulders and heat pumps.
I really like this idea, the panels are thin, unobtrusive, can be wall hung and the picture/mirror options will appeal to many. However, £400 is a helluva price for what is just an 800w heater. I'm going to guess most electricians could wire a 100% efficient, wall mounted convection heater (cost about £80) to a PIR switch and hide all the gubbins away for much less than £400. Although that wouldn't have the radiant heating that people find comfortable
'Not just any 800 watt heater, it's a Jigsaw 800 watt heater'. The tests from Aston university have stated that the 800 watt heater from Jigsaw is twice as quick and uses half the electricity to get a room up to temperature than convection type heaters - the comparable convection heater was a 2 kilowatt heater!
@@glennbillington4879 yeah, but is it an M&S heater?🤣 If that's true then bring it on! The (ancient) physics student in me says 800w of heat is less than 2kw of heat so cannot be faster, but my mind is open!
@@bernardfender5147 perhaps those tests were conducted in a typical UK property that's not so well insulated, meaning the convection heater's heat is being lost before it can warm up the furniture and walls of the property because a large % of the warmed air leaks out. Infrared on the other hand heats the walls and floor etc directly, so there's no need to go through the usual cycle: heat the cold water, pump the water, the hot water heats the air, then the air heats the things.
Yes - they sound great, but I agree - what makes them so expensive......profit? However, I'm all for heating systems that don't require the complications of a wet central heating system.
I think it's correct to say all electric heaters are giving off infra red heat...they are all 100% efficient. 1Kw of heat from any type of electric heater in your house is 1kw of heat in your house. the only thing you can change is the way they spread the heat around and you can control it. ..I had overnight storage heaters they were useless because you had no real control of the heat at all. I control an oil filled electric radiator with a wireless controlled thermostat plug socket, Set the room temp I want and it can be forgotten. Thermostats on the actual appliance aren't very good at controlling room temp because they are too close to the source of the heat.
You failed to ascertain the key metric. How much does it cost to run? Also, traditional heating heats up the whole room also. Furniture the lot! That’s why it takes so long to heat up a cold house. It’s not just the air you need to heat. Everything draws heat. Interesting product but more information please.
Why do you say it takes so long to heat up a cold room. In comparison with other forms of heating it is much quicker. A recent study from Aston University has stated these facts. Twice as quick and half the cost.
@@glennbillington4879 sorry if I wasn’t clear. I’m not disparaging the system. I merely wanted more facts around the cost of running the system as there was little information given on that. If it heats an entire room up much quicker Thames fantastic! Electricity ain’t cheap though so how would it compare to an oil or gas fired system?
If a simple home is heated by each of the methods it will cost so much for each. 68 million people and 28 million dwellings. So IR heat pump and fans and ducts Gas boilers and fans and ducts Bar radiators Gas heaters Plus installation and maintenance Each multiplied by number of dwellings Will tell us savings to the country. Also rooftop solar PV and a plugged in EV car battery. This can be a straight forward thing with the data. It will tell us the dimensions of the future. Do list assumptions, eg number of rooms, 200 days per year, etc.
I have an IR heater. It's very efficient, but it's still less efficient at heating a space than a gas boiler. If I had solar and a powerwall then that might be different, but those are out of my price range for now.
Surely this is the question of efficiency vs effectiveness? These IR panels are very efficient at converting expensive electric to heat/energy but then so are tradition heating elements. Whereas they are not very effective at heating spaces when compared to a gas boiler (but I don't think they claim to be a space heater). However the overall effectiveness comes down to whether you feel adequately warm or not and then how much it costs to do that when compared to other methods.
@You Tube for some. I live in Manchester, a place not renowned for a lot of sun, and my roof is East-West facing not the optimal South facing. I do have a large free standing garage that faces south, but currently has a flat roof. I have been thinking of putting a peaked roof on that and then solar.
@@robthomas7232 Aston University undertook an independent study for three different heating systems. Jigsaw Infrared was the infrared system used in testing. The Study found: IR heating system can increase the room temperature to 18 C in 10 mins which are less than the other two heating systems (2000 W and storage and convection) which take 15 and 17 min respectively. The IR heating system can heat the room temperature to 22-23 C compared to up to 18.5 C for the other two systems. The IR heating system has an efficiency 2 times higher than the 2000 W and storage and convection heating system. Therefore, the IR panel used half the energy (50% less) of the storage heater and reached room temp in almost half the time.
@You Tube we only invented a lot of things because we were the world's first industrialised nation. It was simply a case of a headstart. Be careful with British exceptionalism, it's a dangerous mythos.
Under floor heating is infrared heating. The best form of heating in terms of energy consumption and comfort, would be a heat pump connected to underfloor heating. By the way, in the early days of underfloor heating, plumbers were also embedding pipes into walls and ceilings to get the same results. I believe this practice was dropped because of too many pipes being damaged in these locations
I’m very much inclined to agree with you, with the possible exception of installation cost. For a ground up build or renovation underfloor, particularly with a ground source heat pump, seems a couple of steps ahead. However the infrared panels offer an opportunity to install a much better system to conventional on a room by room basis and at a fraction of the cost compared to having to rip a house apart. It’s one of those cases where the perfect shouldn’t be the enemy of the good.
@@ballagh Yes, I agree - I wasn't arguing underfloor heating was a better or cheaper option to theses panels, although in a new build it would be. i was just pointing out that underfloor heating is infra-red heating..
@@jigsaw.Infrared 1) Can a custom picture be printed on the IR heater, be ordered? Such as from a digital photo. Or is stock prints available? Seem like any added cost would attract higher end customers, who want greater customization options IMHO. 2) Is it available as part of an AR Mirror? Such as for dressing rooms at high end fashion shops. For example the shop just got in bathing suits, while its raining and cool that day. But the AR Mirror can show the customer in one the bathing suits on a sunny beach, while IR simulates the feeling of the sun on her skin. Or for a workout AR Mirror, for those who want be warmed for therapeutic purposes. In gym or at home. To warm their muscles right before or after a workout. Also afterwards it could still be used as an IR heater too, And the AR function could display HVAC and other data (or possibly for videos too?). Just a few random thoughts on how the tech could be used. Good Luck....
A quick retrofit solution but not necesarily the cheapest. what about the cost and upheaval of wiring them in? Draught proofing and insulating the building is far more cost effective in the long run.
Have you had a quote and do you know the costing before making a comment? It would be better to have the draught proofing and insulation anyway but you still need heating.
@@glennbillington How can I have a quote on distant future energy bills? With draught proofing amd proper insulation the heating requirement is far less and you'd be running an old inefficient heating system far less if at all so it will be cheaper.
@@glennbillington4879 that's inaccurate, almost no convection will be generated. Don't pretend IR can do everything, they're a specialised technology for specific situations
@@jrisner6535 Secondary heat is convection J. It's inevitable that once the infrared is absorbed then any further heat will be convection. Similar to when we sweat, heat from us is basically infrared and then the sweat on our clothes will become convection.
Depends on how you use it mostly. If you need your entire house heated a heatpump is more efficient. But if you spend a few hours for the tv each evening and using one of these to just make the sitting area nice and comfertable and shut down all heating in the house this is more efficient.
IR panels == glorified resistor with heating efficiency of a resistor. That's not how you solve energy problem but deepen it. For humanity to reduce risks related to global climate change we need to work on efficiency. For example heat pumps...
Resistive heating actually converts 100% of the energy input to heat so it's pretty good in that sense. The main issue is going to be the need for good insulation in the house or the electricity consumed will be high.
@@SardiPax All losses in electric devices are heat losses therefore the cheapest epectric radiator has the same heating efficiency as the most expensive IR panel, that is 100%. My comment was aimed to propose that we have devices with higher heat energy transfering efficiency a.k.a. heat pumps with COP's around 4-5 compared with COP of 1 in devices that use Joule losses.
@@OAK-808 The pump itself yes, but you then need to transfer that heat around the house, which uses energy, and also there's the issue (if Air Source) of dealing with low external temps. I'm sure the real efficiency is still well over 100% but for most existing houses the heat pumps will still need resistive heating supplementation at times (to heat the water) further reducing overall efficiency. I'm not arguing against heat pumps, but nor am I deceived by the hype.
And what is your educated understanding of the situation and do you plan to save mankind Ja? On and on again we go. NOT EVERYONE can have heat pumps.. When will people listen? It is not suitable for millions of people in the UK and when someone finds the be all and all then we need to do our best. Your remarks are misleading and not fact based at all.
A couple of case studies would help greatly as would comparative running costs as IR uses peak electricity. Not surprising developers and landlords are interested in IR its cheap and easy to install and they don't have to pay the running costs. Interesting though.
Yes the council in Leeds ripped out storage heaters and put IR heaters in as well as electric water heating. The tenants could no longer afford to heat their homes. Awful decision.
There is a total lack of journalist challenge here. I'm assuming a lack of case study because anyone ripping out a gas system and retrofitting these at present would see their bills sky rocket. These have a place when all heating is electric but while gas is 4p per kWh and electric is 20p these just don't stack up.
@@mikestrong719 I think there is a good chance that IR heaters are a very poor choice for most homes. They will only be good if you basically live in just a few rooms and you previously heated all the rooms. There is marginal difference between heating with a "standard" resistive heater and an IR panel, you probably feel the heat more quickly with an IR panel, but the "warming from the fabric of the building" will literally take exactly the same amount of energy as a traditional heater.
These panels are an old, well known technology and that was clearly stated. As the UK’s favourite form of heat energy (gas boilers) become more and more expensive to operate, these modern versions of IR have a definite place. Obviously a well insulated home is the start point, but some heat is still going to be needed and the conversion rate of resistive heating (circa 100%) is very good. Heating the people and the building directly is more efficient than heating a water mass and pumping it around. This is partly because water has very high latent heat capacity and thus takes about 4 times the input per unit output. It’s usually quicker and more efficient to heat directly than via water. Bear in mind that the latent heat in water is not wasted once input, in a closed loop device and heat pumps can output greater heat than the electrical input in ideal conditions. However heat pumps and gas boilers have many drawbacks including a limited lifespan (10-15 years) and expensive maintenance and replacement. As more houses in UK install solar panels and more of our electricity comes from renewables, efficient electric heating will make sense for many peoples homes.
A problem with this logic is that this instantaneous heat will typically be needed when solar isn't not functioning. I think it is pretty evident that the best solution for long duration heat is a heat pump. This could be to heat water to heat air in a rerversible air con system. The fact is that for every calorie of energy taken from the grid you get 3 out from the heat pump. It must comes down to the whether you need to heat a whole space for a long time or a subset of the space for a short time.
@@matthewpieri9080 I'm thinking of getting IR panels as well as a heat pump. Im going to turn flow temperature down so that It's at its most efficient COP all the time, winter or summer. I.e. trickle charge the house with heat from the heat pump and use the IR panels in the room/s I'm in, using a sensor to switch on the panel. I'm using a 350W panel right this minute, and it's adequate. 5 minutes before I get up, I ask Alexa to switch it on. It's 0800,, and I'm already getting 1440W from solar.
Good advert for Jigsaw but does not showcase an independent journalism. Are there any real world cost comparisons rather than potential savings as listed on the website?
Be careful with this one. Physics says a kWh is a kWh whether it’s from gas, oil or electricity. Ripping out storage heaters on the Economy 7 tariff to replace with glorified electric bar radiators at peak tariff is nuts. Yes it’s a form of heat but don’t be fooled. After all a passive house can be heated with 13 candles. Credit the solar panels and fabric first for that not this. They look nice though!
I'm with you and Larry Phenis on this. I just don't get it. They are just fancy electric fires. What more does it do that an old style electric fire or convection (fan or otherwise) heater doesn't? With this type of heating you can't get more heat out than the amount of electricity you put in no matter how you package it. When he claims that the infrared radiation bounces round until it is adsorbed by something in the room, exactly the same can be said of the more conventional electric heaters. On the other hand using the same amount of electricity to run a heat pump should get you around 3 times as much heat for the same running cost.
@@pjaj43 there no infrared, how the hell do there expect to it to get out it's in a enclosed box, Infrared can't pass thought metal anymore than visible light can.
@@barryrogers9862 Not strictly true. All objects, except those at absolute zero, emit (and adsorb) heat radiation (infrared) to some extent. The hotter they are, the more they emit. If you heat a "metal box" above ambient then it will be emitting more than it adsorbs. This is what you feel when you stand near it. Generating heat inside the box transfers it to the outer skin via conduction and the internal radiation from the heater being adsorbed on the inside of the box and thence, transferred by conduction to the outer surface where it is re-emitted, again in the form of infrared radiation.
@@pjaj43 All true Peter, but not direct from the element which take away it one redeeming feature to ability to direct the heat, a flat panel isn't very directional. it produces no more infrared than any other heater at the same temperature, just using buzz words to make look better than it is, at the end of the day it's just an electric heater with no eco credentials and has no place being featured on a channel such as this
@@barryrogers9862 I agree with you completely Barry. I must say that the entire spiel smacked of the snake oil salesman. He was trying to say that his very expensive electric heater was, apart from its looks, somehow better than others. I'm not convinced in the slightest. I'm surprised that Robert was taken in by it and further agree that this had no place on this channel.
Do a complete house full of Infrared Panels improve your EPC value over ordinary electric heaters.. not storage heaters. You also say a builder can get an improved EPC if combined with solar. What effect on EPC without solar.
Infra-red heat conjures up images of heat lamps - surely it should be producing infra-red light that radiates out? Him saying that its a mat in there seems as if its just an electric wire heater in the form of a spread out mat within the panel!?
@@OAK-808 Yes I understand the principal. My feeling is this is not going to be very cost effective unless the property is well insulated but in difficult to insulate properties a directional heater could be more cost effective. I've used radiant heaters and they are very good but they require a lot of power. I wouldn't retro fit these to an existing property, rather spend £8000 on insulation and draught proofing.
That is basicly what this does. If you put a panel above where you sit, you only have to run that panel and the rest of the room does not have to be heated. Other systems depend on warming the entire space. Especially air based heaters have to heat the entire room, and to a higher temperature because you are missing the radiated heat.
No comparison. The panels are resistive heaters just like the glowing coils of yesteryear. This is a terrible way to produce heat. In fact, the worst way to produce heat from electricity.
Much cheaper to purchase an IR panel per kw and has 100% conversion of energy. Heat pumps can be 300%-400% efficient but this can drop to around 120% in a British winter.
Heat pump COP is not all it’s claimed to be. The COP figures do not come from real life testing and the COP is often closer to 1:1 An independent study - commissioned by BEIS but written by Cambridge Architectural Research - investigated cost-optimal ways to install electric heating, including infra-red heating, and energy efficiency measures across a 12 housing archetypes, representing 90% of Britain’s 28 million homes. The study found that: • The total lifetime costs (capital + operating) of infrared heating were found to be competitive, although not cost-optimal in some housing types. • There were only small differences in costs over 15 years between low- or high-temperature heat pumps, air-to-air heat pumps, infrared or storage radiators. • Assuming a longer product lifespan (e.g. >20 years) for electric storage heaters and infrared heaters made heat pumps less attractive over the total period of ownership - as heat pumps were assumed to be replaced more frequently.
@@glennbillington4879 I inherited two of them with a tiny house. I use them to sentimentally dry towels in a bathroom. When it comes to 'studies', I don't take their results as gospel because they are not making their assessment criteria absolutely clear. I see no metric for 'comfort', but I do for speed. You know what I'm saying?
A reverse cycle aircon is far more efficient and can cool the room in the summer. I guess this system has uses in rooms too hard/expensive to service via RC aircon.
I've posted before about IR heating, I'll post again. I've been using IR heating at work for a couple of decades, for heating large poorly insulated areas it's quite good, but for a well insulated house it would be my choice of last resort, yes it's cheap to install (there are much cheaper heaters around than these), but the running costs are relatively high. My big worry is that developers will be very interested as they will cut costs, but the consumers and grid will pay the price in the long run.
What heaters are you using in your commercial property. Panel heaters or the high power type? Are they installed with efficiency in mind? Would need to know more before we could reply.
Excellent interview and some really useful information. I’m amazed at some comments from viewers, obviously they didn’t watch the full video and decided to quote comments which are out of context. The cost of installation is relevant to the size of the room/property and if you had aluminium or glass. Infrared is another example of good heating for your home or office and if you discount it then you are behind the times. I’ve had infrared for six years now and it’s worked really well, warms up quickly and it saved us a fortune in that time. Thank god i got rid of the storage heaters when i did.
The infrared from the flat panels is just radiant heat, like from a central heating radiator, only at a temperature of 80 to 125 degrees C, compared with about 50 to 60 degrees C for the former. The peak wavelength is around 9 to 10 microns. Of course, you need to position the heater with respect to your bed so you don’t feel too warm. And you can feel the heat on your skin at 0.5m, when the larger panels are on full. That might be too close for sleeping. Some will allow you to reduce the panel temperature for this reason. I’m a physicist, so have some knowledge, but you can cross-check with others. The other type of infrared heater, the visible and near infrared (NIR) to short wave infrared (SWIR) types use strip or bar elements at much higher temperatures, and these are used for patios, and used to be popular in bathrooms. I suspect the shorter wavelengths from these might dry and crack your skin with prolonged exposure, so this second type is not suitable for sleeping under, and is only for occasional use. But do seek other opinions.
Nice idea and nice looking units. Not sure onthe price tag and £400 notes for a small unit and £700 for a larger unit, compared to £89-120 for a single large radiator. Suppose you dont have a boiler to worry about and the water leak potential. Not sure how the hot water would work as no space in my new house for any type water cyclinder , does not even have wardrode space in the bedrooms !!!
@@jigsaw.Infrared Those comments are hard to find and STILL there wasn't exact figures given. just something about being 1/3 the electricity use of other electric heat sources. That doesn't help me much. I wanna see real world figures and I wanna see them compared to heat pumps. Electric heat is extremely inefficient and you're doing NOTHING to convince us that you have something truly new and different
Judging by the comments, this one is almost as controversial as "solar freakin' roadways". For now, I side with the skeptics. I'm having difficulty understanding how, in terms of energy usage, this is different than having a space heater in each room.
Hi, Larry! Um, yes. It seems to be... a stylish electric heater. Pump electricity in one end, heat up some wires, get warmth out of the other end. Er... In my experience that's always been a horribly expensive way of doing things, unless you produce all of your own entirely free electricity. And if you can generate endless power, I don't imagine you'd give a hoot🦉about running what amounts to a home full of old-school electric fires in the first place. I'm not sure I understand the benefits of what's being offered here. Electricity's expensive. Using it for heating is expensive. And? Ah, nostalgia... My late mum used to have a 'Magicoal' 2-bar electric fire. (No central heating.) She'd only ever use the heating part of it (either 1 or 2 x 1kW resistive heating elements) if she had guests; when alone she'd sit with the cat on her lap and turn on the 'glowing coal' (a 60 watt red lightbulb driving a lightweight circular aluminium propeller by convected heat to give a flickering effect). The artificial glow was some slight comfort in a freezing room, but wrapping up well was the only way to actually keep warm. Unfortunately it soon got to the stage that even running the 60 watt lightbulb was seen as an unnecessary extravagance, so she just cuddled Boops the cat, who was a tremendous source of comfort and who generated an astonishing amount of free heat over a period of 18 contented, purr-filled years. 🙂
The sun is a radiant heater. Stand in the direct rays of the sun and you will feel warmer than if you stand in the shade. The air temperature around you will be the same but in the shade you'll not have the benefit of the radiant heating.Space heaters typically must first heat the air in the room to bring the space to a comfortable temperature. Radiant heating directly heats the occupants and the surfaces of the room without having to first heat the air. As hot air, NOT heat, but hot air rises, when using space heaters the temperature in a room is stratified with the air at the ceiling level being the hottest. As we are standing or sitting in the middle or lower thirds of the room we have to essentially overheat the air at the ceiling level till we are comfortable down at occupancy level. Heating all that volume of air to keep a person warm is less efficient than heating the person directly. Our bodies radiate heat to any surface around that is colder than we are and if we feel cold it is because we are radiating more heat than our body is producing at that moment. If you walk down the freezer foods section in a store you will probably feel cold, but if you compare the air temperature in the freezer foods aisle with the air temperature in the rest of the store you will probably find that there is little difference between the readings. None the less the freezer foods area feels colder because, again, we are radiating our body heat to the cold surfaces of the freezer displays. In houses that have radiant heating typically residents are comfortable at a lower air temperature than in houses with hot air heating. Hot air heating may be in the form of forced hot air, electric space heaters, hot water base boards, hot water radiators or fan forced convectors but primarily they all rely on heating the space through convection of hot air. There is a small radiant component to each of these systems which increases with the surface area of the emitter. For example a large standing cast iron radiator has a lot of surface area and sitting near it will feel warmer than sitting further away from it even though the difference in air temperature between the two locations is not significant. The grill/register of a forced hot air heating system has almost no surface area to radiate heat and so will not provide noticeable difference in comfort. I think it is universally accepted by those who have experienced it, that radiant heating provides the greatest levels of comfort. Radiant heating usually uses hot water flowing through tubing embedded in the floors walls or ceiling but for small areas such as bathroom floors may use electric resistance cable embedded in the floor. Electric radiant panels using a glass surface with an incorporated electric element were sold, installed and enjoyed by some in the 1950's here in western Canada when electricity was cheap. The first panels here used a proprietary tempered glass patented in France and were very successful but later panels used a glass made without the proprietary glass and due to thermal cycling they eventually would shatter, exploding outwards in a shower of glass and thus ended this style of heating in this area. Electric radiant panel heaters continued to be manufactured, sometimes as cable sandwiched between sheets of drywall for use in T-Bar ceilings, sometimes as low profile unit to be surface mounted on ceiling or wall but both of these were primarily used for spot heating (above a desk or work station) but never commonly used as the heat for an entire project. In the 1980's a Scandinavian company ESWA produced a radiant panel that was a foil heating element laminated into a thin plastic film. The film panels were stapled along the edges to the rough framing of the ceiling, interconnected, then covered with a drywall/plaster finish. These radiant ceilings worked well providing comfort and efficient, clean, silent operation making those who had them very happy. Until that is the panels started to break down and fail prematurely and thus ended another era of electric radiant heating. While electric radiant heating panels were failing, hydronic heating panels were surging in popularity amongst those who could afford them and today this continues to be the premium heating system available. Using plastic tubing laid out in loops on the floor of each room then embedded and covered with a finish surface, each room or area can be individually controlled providing the economy and comfort benefits of a zoned radiant heating system. While water is used to distribute the heat, the heat source can be any or even multiple sources of energy, such as electricity or gas or wood or coal or solar or heat pump. When built as a combination system such as gas/oil/electric, the owner can switch between energy types at the flip of a switch or automatically through software, taking advantage of which ever fuel is the cheapest at a given moment. As hydronic radiant panel systems provide comfort using a relatively low water temperature of 38 to 48 degrees C, maximum, they are well suited to heat pumps allowing the heat pump to operate at low and hence more efficient output temperatures. So there you have it. Radiant heat is the most comfortable form of heating and the most economical and Hydronic Hot Water Heating is the best way to implement radiant heating because it can use any form of fuel or energy. The End. Except not The End. Hydronic Hot Water Heating is Excelent, but it is old news. It's old technology. It's had it's day, or soon will have. Why, you ask? The answer is Super Power as predicted by Tony Seba. When electricity becomes as cheap as Tony predicts (due to battery storage, solar and wind production) it will no longer make sense to invest tens of thousands of dollars to install a hydronic radiant panel system when it is much simpler, cheaper and easier to gain the same benefits using electric radiant panel systems. While historically some types electric radiant panels have not lasted others have. The simplest is electric resistance cable as is often used for heating the floor in fancy house bathrooms. It is cheap, reliable, silent when operating and unlike hot water tubing in the floor it will not start leaking if ever the house loses power and so freezes up. And as quite as hydronic systems are, there can still be some sound of water flow, pump noise, boiler or heat pump operation. So now, to sum up, finally. Lets go back to the future as seen in the 1950's and once again and for the foreseeable future, enjoy the benefits of electric radiant heating using what ever type or product is most suitable for the application. I hear that Jigsaw Infrared is doing some nice things these days.
Taking the easy option and following other people is your choice. Ever thought of making an educated decision? There are many forms of data on the internet which supports infrared, even educated University studies have demonstrated its effectiveness against other forms of heating. If you prefer to listen to ill educated sceptics then you may be missing the point Larry.
Inside the panels there's a series of coils that get hot when you pass electricity through them. It uses the resistance of the wire, (and therefore the heat the wire produces) to heat the ceramic/glass/whatever panels. Not magic. Not efficient. Yes it heats everything up. You, the air and the cup you put in front of it. It's a heater.
@@OAK-808 the main component of air is nitrogen/oxygen and they're transparent to IR unless it contains very high humidity. The heating of the air is secondary once the IR radiation has heated up a surface.
there website doesn't show comparative costs to gas or indeed standard electric storage heaters. they say on there website 30% more efficient ('studies show'). this is vague and anyway not particurlary good.sounds much more expensive than gas and cost is the metric that will get most people to switch. like a Tesla car, we all love them and would buy one if we could get one for £5k on the second hand market. another energy product for the rich only it seems.
The study shows Jigsaw Infrared is twice as quick and half the cost of storage heaters. The study is being released very soon. Before you ask, it was carried out in a controlled environment at a University.
@@gazlives That is coming but not everyone has gas. There are hundreds of thousands of people who need to use electric. Add to that, a great number of people are adding solar and battery so they won't be reliant on the grid or the gas board.
I think one thing which confuses people is efficiency of electric heating, even a tungsten light bulb is a near 100% efficient heater. You won't use much more electricity heating your home with a 12 quid fan heater from the local Screwstation or Toolfix than the most expensive "ceramic" heater commonly advertised in newspapers and on here, there is an awful lot of BS around this. There is no technology out there that is going to be significantly more effective than simply running an electric current through a wire so it gets hot, its 100 % or very close as it is. No amount of ceramics, graphene, carbon fibre, laser or quantum flam flam can be any better per Wat than we have already with a three bar electric fire. Although it might look nicer and present the heat in a more agreeable way. Electricity is an incredibly efficient heater by just running it through a resistance even something designed to do something different like TV or an Audio amplifier are quite efficient room heaters.
A fan heater doesn't radiate heat onto you. It is not the same thing. Compare it to sitting outside on a chilly day. In the shade you are cold while sitting in the sun the air temperature is the same but you still feel warm and cozy. It is more efficient because you don't need to heat all the air in a space or building and still be equally comfertable.
I see a lot of opinions, but I would want to experience the devices in action. I think they would be much faster than wet radiators and the energy is going to stay inside the room rather than going through convective air heating which then heats the content of the room by conduction (if the air doesn't blow away or rise to the ceiling) A classic example would be one of those days when outside and the sun shines on you and you feel warm immediately even if the air is cold. The moment the sun goes behind a cloud you feel cold. All this needs is a battery to hold the energy so that you can use off peak electricity. Curiously I just remembered, (probably Tomorrow's World), electric wall paint.
These must be stupid questions because so far I cannot find answers online; Are the panels hot to the touch? What is their maximum surface temperature? Are they safe around children and animals?
Absolutely! Fully Charged not looking at the inefficiencies, only the shiny new sponsored content. We need to look at efficiency and lifetime cost of ownership, not just upfront cost. This is an expensive and inefficient way to heat your home. The only benefit is that you get instant heat. The other principles that they suggest in the video apply to heat pumps as well - insulate and have thermally efficient windows.
I guess that it did say "includes paid promotion". I missed that. I go to Fully Charged for trustworthy information. Now I have to wonder if what is being reviewed is simply an advert. Extremely disappointing. How on earth does this product Care for the Planet if it is simply an inefficient resistive heater.
These can still be more efficient in actual use though. These work locally and require air temperature to be substantially lower to be equally comfertable. Heat pumps need to heat entire spaces to higher temperatures to reach the same comfort level.
If you want electric radiant heat buy an oil filled panel heater or a bar heater at a fraction of the price. Electricity for radiant heat is approximately 4 times more expensive than gas for central heating (or heat pumps) as it uses electricity immediately probably at the most expensive time of the day. Maybe if you can afford a battery large enough (60+kwh) to store one days worth of energy and charge that when prices are low then it may be worth it. I suspect that as electricity gets cheaper because of wind, solar and nuclear generation then the price difference to gas will get smaller in which case this may work. This systems only advantage is the control, but that is not game changing.
Aston University undertook an independent study for three different heating systems. Jigsaw Infrared was the infrared system used in testing. The Study found: IR heating system can increase the room temperature to 18 C in 10 mins which are less than the other two heating systems (2000 W and storage and convection) which take 15 and 17 min respectively. The IR heating system can heat the room temperature to 22-23 C compared to up to 18.5 C for the other two systems. The IR heating system has an efficiency 2 times higher than the 2000 W and storage and convection heating system. Therefore, the IR panel used half the energy (50% less) of the storage heater and reached room temp in almost half the time.
Don't think it will stay that way RE: expense of electricity vs. gas. It has been rumoured that the government will shortly be announcing the moving of levies from electricity (e.g. smart meter rollout costs) to gas.
@@jigsaw.Infrared How fast you can heat the room means nothing. Heat energy is heat energy and if heat pump can pump 4kJ of heat energy into isolated place with 1kJ of electric power you used 1kJ of electric energy to gain 4kJ of heat energy. If you want to have the same heating effect you will need to consume 4kJ of electric energy with IR panels. Therefore they are much less efficient.
@@jamislil2703 The heat pump is heating water to heat air. Water takes a lot of energy to heat. Water requires 4.2KJ of energy to heat 1Kg by 1ºC. Air or brick, the fabric of the building as an example, takes around 0.7KJ of energy to heat 1Kg by 1ºC. Therefore, the 4:1 ratio of a heat pump is being lost in the very energy-hungry process of heating water.
@@jigsaw.Infrared I agree but if you are heating a house for example you will need to heat everything in the house to the same temperature to have the constant temperature. If you have a thermostat with constant temperature everything is already heated to the same temperature except outer walls that cool because of their non zero heat transmittance. So heating the house is a match between a loss of heat energy provided by heat transmittance between outer walls and outside air and your ability to supplement that lost heat energy. And heat energy transfer is lossless aka. if you heat one kilo of water for one kelvin above the themperature of the surroundings and wait all the heat energy that was transferred to water will be transferred to the air and therefore heat it.
If gas cost per kWh was identical to electric cost per kWh, then it would be cheaper for electric heating - especially when you add in the smart features. I suspect that gas costs will continue to rise so that we are forced into switching to electric heating.
In the UK, the government has a 23% tax on electricity (+VAT) for domestic customers, whilst gas only has 1.9%. That was about right when we burnt coal and oil to make electricity, but now the pollution caused to generate electricity is about the same as the pollution caused to burn gas at home, so these taxes should be equal.
That's a very good value hat. My warm hat cost 35 quid! (It is a really nice posh gore windstopper hat which is so good it's almost worth the ridiculous price).
Well, the issue there isn't the electric heater, it's the fact that the UK still has too much fossil fuel generation. But that's changing, just like it is in most places, and just like EVs, as the grid gets cleaner, so does your heating, but a gas boiler is always going to pollute the same, or worse as it ages, plus you run the risk of dying from CO poisoning and a shortened lifespan from breathing particulates. Getting rid of a gas heater is a no-brainer, really. In Australia, the most popular heating is now reverse cycle air con, there are some really efficient units, the two best probably being Daikin and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (not Mitsubishi Electric, which are the cheaper, crappier brand). Even at sub-zero outdoor temps they can have pretty good CoPs.
@@ledsalesoz electric is too expensive compared to gas, plus the UK has had to fire up coal power stations. The UK grid can only just cope at the moment, without chucking millions of battery cars and electric heating at it. And that has nothing to do with the current situation is been like that for years.
We are currently designing a passive house heated solely with infra-red mats. It is a very flexible and easy to install system, however it should not be underestimated, that the key issue is the source of electricity. In our case we use integrated PV panels which generate sufficient amount of energy to cover the power demand. It would be very misleading to sell this technology as green and sustainable if the power was generated by a conventional fossil fuel power plant. Another point is that, compared to conventional underfloor heating linked to a heat pump, we cannot use the infra-red system for cooling.
The cost of heating our home halved as we previously had storage heaters. Isn’t installing the mats a totally different method? It’s more expensive than panels I’m led to believe. Have you price Jigsaws panels to compare the cost difference?
@@glennbillington The principle of the system we use is identical to the one used in panels, the main difference being that the infrared mat is placed directly under the flooring and not integrated into an aluminium panel. The mats could also be used on a ceiling or a wall. An advantage of mat over a panel is a more even heat distribution in a room. On the other hand if there is any breakdown or damage to the circuit you have to replace the entire floor. With a panel any breakdowns are much easier to fix.
i need to get this off my chest. I sell double and triple glazing. Triple glazing is not always the best for heat retention in your house. Yes, it is better at keeping the heat in. You only need to look at u value for that. But it stops natural light and heat coming in because it has 3 panes of glass. Free energy. Look at the g value. Overall triple glazing is best on the north side of the property where you do not get as much energy from the sun and double glazing is better in the east-west and south so you can harness free heat from the sun. Triple is great in countries like Norway Denmark and Iceland because they go long periods without much sun. The reality is the introduction of triple glazing broke the EPC(energy performance certification) in the UK for windows. Infra red heating looks great mind.
Rubbish! Infrared and blackbody heaters have been around for years. Also, some shops had them fitted these are not new just a different type. They may have a very small place in the market, if the heat loss of the room is 3KW per hr then you need 3KW per hr to maintain it once you have used say 5KW per hr to get it to the right temperature.
Thats a very open statement Alan. What is rubbish? What are you stating a fact about? Is it rubbish that infrared is used or that it is a better option than many other methods of electric heating? Or it rubbish because you do not understand it? You talk about heat loss as though your profane to be an expert, is that the case and if so then you may be able to help the infrared companies make some improvements? Or all heating companies out there? However, if there is heat loss then it is better to put that right before any form of heating is installed. The place in the market may be small but as the people are educated they may wish to have infrared installed. Is that for you to decide with your negative attitude. As I've said several times now. It will take many different ways to help this situation and infrared is down to the choice of the customer and you stating things to be rubbish does not mean you are right. In fact, I would call you out and say you are 100% wrong!
@@OAK-808 the second pert of your statement sounds incorrect. I don't thing Robert would be associated with such a paid advert. He's a funny bloke alright but that doesn't mean he has the morals of the PM. Quite the opposite, I think he is a decent and honest person.
Surely this has to be LESS efficient than storage heaters since it is the same resistive heater as storage without the storage! Looks like old technology with the words 'infrea red' added.
@@Hyfly13 It's a resistive heater and therefore an inefficient way of producing heat. The video is an advert for a fashionable item that in the future will have very limited uses. Certainly not heating an entire house. Convenient and easy, but woefully inefficient.
Interesting to see, although I'm not convinced about the 'heating the fabric' comments. I would say that whilst it might be less efficient, wet underfloor heating used over the whole floor area would create an even heat that will warm the fabric. If the building is modern/well insulated then the flow rate and temperature could both be reduced to a very 'background' level. These certainly have a place in ecclesiastical buildings as pulling up stone flags to lay underfloor is not a very useful option.
One of the issues with wet underfloor is heat up and response times. Sure if you are going to leave on a basic background heat that has some validity. How many householders are going to be happy with a basic background heat instead of actually being warm? I think the point to note is that there isn't a one size fits all heating solution. We're one part of the Jigsaw of heating solutions as is wet under floor heating.
I've never tried infrared but have carried out a whole house retrofit with slab/insulation/wet underfloor/screed/porcelain tiles (with aluminium triple glazing, MVHR and external wall insulation) and can't imagine how this could beat the low flow temp, topping up the building as required with the underfloor set up. Temperatures are stable and it's really been a complete game changer in terms of how comfortable our (originally) leaky 1929 detached 3 bed is to live in. Just need to get rid of the gas once the cost of other electric alternatives comes down to a reasonable cost. I'm sure there are use cases for infrared but I can't imagine it could compare to the gentle top up heat, coming from below, across the whole floor area. Maybe I'm wrong, but I guess we're going to need all the solutions we can get to move towards space heating that can be powered by 100% renewably generated electricity 👍🏻 (and made in the UK, that's novel but so welcome).
@@glennbillington Not sure if you were asking me, although I'm a Building Surveyor in case you were asking me. Like I said, I've got no issue with the product as they certainly have a place, but it won't be able to 'heat the fabric' quite as simply as the interview stated.
It's not a heat pump though so only 100% efficient rather than 300-400%. Aren't we being conned into thinking these are more efficient than they really are?
Not sure 'conned' is the word, but clearly heat pumps are a better use of electricity to generate heat - but this is not aimed at people who have that as an option - though you could achieve a similar effect with a £25 halogen heater stuck to the ceiling with a motion sensor switch! ^oo^
Heat pumps are not always suitable due to current prices (10k), space, etc. Such solutions like a modular system and less costs are all making such products a good option for many. Not for everyone but for many :)
Heat pump COP is not all it’s claimed to be. The COP figures do not come from real life testing and the COP is often closer to 1:1 An independent study - commissioned by BEIS but written by Cambridge Architectural Research - investigated cost-optimal ways to install electric heating, including infra-red heating, and energy efficiency measures across a 12 housing archetypes, representing 90% of Britain’s 28 million homes. The study found that: • The total lifetime costs (capital + operating) of infrared heating were found to be competitive, although not cost-optimal in some housing types. • There were only small differences in costs over 15 years between low- or high-temperature heat pumps, air-to-air heat pumps, infrared or storage radiators. • Assuming a longer product lifespan (e.g. >20 years) for electric storage heaters and infrared heaters made heat pumps less attractive over the total period of ownership - as heat pumps were assumed to be replaced more frequently. Additionally, Aston University undertook an independent study for three different heating systems. Jigsaw Infrared was the infrared system used in testing. The Study found: IR heating system can increase the room temperature to 18 C in 10 mins which are less than the other two heating systems (2000 W and storage and convection) which take 15 and 17 min respectively. The IR heating system can heat the room temperature to 22-23 C compared to up to 18.5 C for the other two systems. The IR heating system has an efficiency 2 times higher than the 2000 W and storage and convection heating system. Therefore, the IR panel used half the energy (50% less) of the storage heater and reached room temp in almost half the time.
No, you are not, the experts in the Universities have stated infrared is efficient and you should try it. Heat pumps are heat pumps and will break down in time and then the efficiency will become less and less. Then you’ll have to replace it.
If the electric heating is 100% efficient and gas is 85% the gas is still more efficient (for now) because the electricity being produced is coming from a gas power station which is only 50% efficient and then you have transmission loss ontop of that It is true that renewables and nuclear combined make up around 50% of the UK's electricity production, but any additional load put on the grid will almost exclusively be covered by gas power stations, that being said once the grid nears 100% renewables we can't then swap out every homes heating instantly and switch every petrol car for an electric one instantly so these projects will have to happen somewhat simultaneously
@@glennbillington electric heating is 100% efficient due to no energy loss, A rated boilers are over 90% efficient (also there will be other losses due to circulating the fluid around) most modern gas power stations are between 50 and 60% efficient according to science direct, the exact grid mix can be found at grid.iamkate but is generally speaking 25% renewables 25% nuclear and 50% fossil and the idea that additional load on the grid will be met exclusively by gas is based on basic logic as nuclear nor renewables can be increased as demand picks up Yes I've generalised numbers and that but everything I've said has been based firmly in reality
We are chucking our oil boiler and rads for whole house IR heating in Ireland...and I can't get it done fast enough! Have PV solar and battery to help offset higher winter electrical costs...even though it is not a "new" technology MANY people have never heard of it here in Ireland. If you have not experienced it first-hand, it is great and works well for our temperate climate in SW Ireland...spent 3,000 euro last year on heating oil and don't see it getting any cheaper. Time to get with the future :)
Interesting Kevin. Whereabouts on the island are you. I’ve long argued that air source isn’t suitable in bits of Ireland due to the moisture laden air.
@@hughmarcus1 We are in Schull - looks like certain brands of air source are much better at handling the salty sea air/mist but still require routine maintenance to eyeball how things are faring as they age. For us, the massive expense of a2w did not make sense, and the complicated interfaces and such seemed like a disaster if I had to leave home and the wife was here by herself...we are originally from Texas and have spent the last year researching heating systems here, and it's so complicated! I do like mini-split systems, had them in the states and they worked great (cooling in the summer and heating in the winter). But we are going to try IR panels first, then if need be we would install a few mini-split systems in the rooms we feel need more.
Interesting and compares well to a heat pump install from an initial comparison. The main problem is running costs. Looking over 15 years and using the absolute worst efficiency of 2:1 for a heat pump the IR will double my running costs. As I do get a 3:1 efficiency it will triple my running costs. It is though a really good swap for gas boilers where heatpumps are too difficult to install. Electrification is the future, it's carbon intensity will reduce over time and IR would work well with solar/battery storage. Well done Jigsaw.
There is a difference between an air heating system, what an heat pump would be usually and a radiating heating system.
A radiating system can be much more localised and other surfaces that absob the radiation wil also itself start radiating.
And with radiated heat the temperature of the air can be kept substantially lower because the radiation feels a lot warmer.
Like how sitting next to a water radiator or an open fire makes you feel the heat comming off it even if the surrounding air is colder.
Can you do a total cost comparison of the heating types otherwise it is difficult to compare eg: IR vs heat pump etc. The product looks simple but I’m more interested in what heating system is the most efficient at getting the same result over the longer term. Thanks
That study is being done. However, a lot of the population cannot have heat pumps. Infrared fairs very well against other forms of electric heating, 50% quicker and 50% cheaper. This was a 800watt panel against a 2 kilowatt convection heater.
@@glennbillington4879 OK. Perhaps a more though comparison after your study plus where to get them. I am in London. Do that I will email it to my energy company Ecotricity.
This must be the key question. It's going to be difficult to answer because it depends on the use case specifics. It would be good to see some use cases in details.
The only cost comparison that matters is getting a quote for installation with a proposed design for each system (or mix of systems) that you want to consider. Any heating and cooling technology can be applied through design effort in many different ways to a given house. There is no study that gives you “the answer” for your house. For my house IR is not effective relative to heat pump except in the bathrooms - that’s not in any study either. Find a quality designer and installers and make a plan.
If you have an EV, you are probably on a time of use tariff. Octupus Go is close to 40p peak, but 8p off peak - god knows what the peak rate is going to be next year. The elephant in the room with any electric heating is the cost to run at peak rate. A normal house is already using 10-12kWh per day and this system will add an estimated 4kwh (assuming 1hour of usage of 4x1000W panels) - this is my guesses I could be incorrect. Most electric heating really does need solar plus battery - a common battery size now would be 8kWh and in the winter you might be lucky to generate 4kWh per day. The other bottleneck could be the inverter. If you have all the panels on at the same time, the inverter might not handle it - if the oven is on too, then you really start paying!
I have been enjoyed, so thank you for delivering.
I can see this being useful for businesses. I have rooms that are used sporadically throughout the day, and staff who only know how to turn heating on and thermostats up. (Not off or down). Also in retail with the shop door opening all day long, if you are heating the people and not the air, could work well. Anyone have experience of this in retail?
he gave a good example, churches where you absolutely aren't trying to heat up the building.
The guy himself said the tech has been around decades, the difference is a larger panel to emit the same amount of IR heat can have a lower surface temperature (ie it doesnt glow! So sure the packaging is different to the old fashioned bar heaters, but the tech is the same and if you watch the video ,he says this. Best position for these is on the ceiling though so it heats the floor, making the system work a bit li kik e underfloor heating, ie more efficient.
You would obviously be crazy to run these on peak , day rate electric, but again as they say in the video it works best if run off PV and battery storage. There are different solutions for different people and different scenarios ...
When my old gas boiler finally packs in, I'm seriously considering switching to IR heaters. Hopefully by then the price will have come down a bit too. I can't wait to be rid of the following:
*Paying for regular service visits from a gas safe engineer
*Boiler breaking down when you least expect it
*The cost of buying and fitting replacement parts for the boiler
*Water pipes running all over the house that could potentially leak
*Bleeding the radiators
*Radiators taking up space and having to lay furniture out so they don't block them
*Paying for gas bills - I'd rather have a single electric bill and not have to pay the daily standing charge for having gas even if I don't use any
Screwfix currently have 1kw ones I stock for £12.99
The looks may not look the best, but are as efficient and you can decide if you like the heat, and the leccy bills before spending £000s.
IR is more useful for supplementally heating people, so that the room's temp can lowered. So it possible to just buy one IR heater and experiment with it to see how effective it can be for "you", while your still using your old gas boiler.
But also consider a radiator based Heat Pump (which has tax advantages too) when it time to replace the boiler. Since it will be far more efficient for heating "rooms". HP vs IR heating, have different pros and cons. Good luck....
The inherent inefficiency of resistive heating will forever gnaw at you. Don't do it.
look a YT wannabe expert and his 2 pence of input ;)
Be careful Daniel... last time I looked at my bill gas was 1/6 th the price of electricity per kw/h. If you don't need a lot of heat they could work for sure, but if you are like most of us in the UK and use a lot of heating in the winter you'll need to look elsewhere I fear...
As a electrical company we have installed a few of these with digital thermostat.
Fantastic!!!we will contact them
Cool if you can't fit a heatpump - witch is 3 to 5 times more efficient. Nice control features as well.
A heat pump would cost a little bit more but you'd probably save the difference in a couple of years. Trouble with great pumps is they are a complicated machine whereas this system should be fit and forget.
Heat pump COP is not all it’s claimed to be. The COP figures do not come from real life testing and the COP is often closer to 1:1
An independent study - commissioned by BEIS but written by Cambridge Architectural Research - investigated cost-optimal ways to install electric heating, including infra-red heating, and energy efficiency measures across a 12 housing archetypes, representing 90% of Britain’s 28 million homes. The study found that:
• The total lifetime costs (capital + operating) of infrared heating were found to be competitive, although not cost-optimal in some housing types.
• There were only small differences in costs over 15 years between low- or high-temperature heat pumps, air-to-air heat pumps, infrared or storage radiators.
• Assuming a longer product lifespan (e.g. >20 years) for electric storage heaters and infrared heaters made heat pumps less attractive over the total period of ownership - as heat pumps were assumed to be replaced more frequently.
The panels can be situated in the more appropriate locations in any room, have the heat where you want it.
@@matthewwakeham2206 quality pumps keep save more than enough to pay for repairs and some extra. Heat pumps will get smarter too as well as include cooling feature and or replace boiler (hot tap water). What people chose may vary on their priority, long term saving - features - initial cost - planet friendly.
@@jigsaw.Infrared sorry Jigsaw, it's outrageous that you're misrepresenting the BEIS report like that - heat pumps were shown to be the most cost effective solution over 15 years and that would only increase.
From an energy efficiency perspective, Jigsaw is a good name for it, because it's a bit of a puzzle as to its merits in comparison to better systems.
Very clever remark but is it right? And the better systems are?
@@glennbillington4879 1:1 'efficiency' where heat energy is concerned, is nowhere near good enough if we are going to have any chance of limiting the damage by the climate change fire we are fuelling with bad energy choices.
We need to reduce energy consumption, firstly via better insulation, and secondly by harnessing freely available natural resources with combined Heat Pump and PV technology for example.
Snake oil products accelerate global warming.
Get the idea, but from what I remember of previous infrared heaters, is like standing in front of a coal fire in the old days. Your body facing the fire is warm or hot, but the side of your body opposite the heater is cooler and feels even colder because of the extreme difference?
I quite like the idea of a suspended one, radiating down from the ceiling.
It depends on the installation and how effective it is. Your comparison is not the best and maybe better suited to the old days?
That is why these are bigger and use less wattage. The old ones used halgen bulbs which concentrated a huge amount of heat comming from a very small area. This sends less heat from a much larger area making it more moderate and comfertable.
This would more be like sitting in the sun on a early spring day. Nice and comfertable in the sun, but chilly in the shade. That is the best way to discribe it i think.
Been thinking of getting something like this for a while, as my flat has a crappy E7 storage heater, an old gas fire and frost protection heater for when I'm not there. Handy information.
Same with me needing to replace old E7 storage heaters in a small cottage, no gas. Looks ideal.
Changed my life and has helped improve our spend on fuel. It saves money because its not being wasted on heating the air.
@@glennbillington What does this 'not heating air' mean? Of course it's heating the air. It's a resistive heater embedded in ceramic. Very inefficient. There are so many better solutions.
@@OAK-808 the heat is emitted as radiation. Not convection.
A tiny proportion of the heat is emitted as waste heat in convection, the vast majority heats you directly, using infrared.
Heatpumps by comparison heat the room via traditional wet convection radiators. Resulting in wasted energy as the room air must be heated in order for the heat pump to transfer heat to you the individual.
I can see using a heat pump to establish your basic temperature (say 15C) and efficient panels triggered by presence.
I think you should qualify it by saying that it’s far infrared as opposed to near infrared. so it’s longer wavelength, then a bar heater and more conducive to heating nearby surfaces
These are fairly popular in Europe but the efficiency is max 100% as it's a resistance heater. Never going to as efficient as a heat pump. Can we have some reviews of off the shelf reversible air conditioner units as cheap heating systems.
This is the issue we encounter. Heat pumps are not appropriate in all cases. There needs to be some alternative and this is another form of heating. If you use solar and battery they are on a par but again, not always appropriate.
Agreed. It's weird than an EV show would not get it: the resistance heater in my 2016 e-Golf is _far_ less efficient than the heat pumps in... just about every new EV out there. EV people have known this since the LEAF. There's probably a place for these IR heaters but if it's efficiency we're after -- and we are! -- heat pumps are the way to go.
@@glennbillington4879 that surely isn't true. Why would having a battery and solar make a difference. Solar on its one provides electricity when it typically isn't needed for heating. Solar plus battery provides the flexibility to provide electricity when it is needed. Both heat pumps and your panels would make use of that flexibility. By heat pumps are 200-300% efficient and your panels are at most 100% efficient. I think your panels can only be more efficient to heat a small part of a large open space or to provide bursts of heat in a space that is usually unoccupied. Solar + battery is irrelevant to the question of heat pump vs IR panels it's basic physics.
You need a lot less heat with a radiator. You don't need to heat entire rooms and air temperature can be substantially lower to feel equally comfertable with radiated heat compared to a space that is just heated by air.
Instead of heating a complete space continually to a higher temperature you can use a single panel to just have the heat radiate onto you where you are sitting. Over the dinner table or over the sofa or your desk etc.
@@xchopp resistive heaters heat air. Radiators radiate heat onto you.
For a car comparison a radiating heater is more like the seat heating in your car. With that on you can keep the cabin temperature lower and be equally comfertable still. Which is what is recomended for ev's. And this is also resistive heating but is still a more efficient way to reach the exact same comfort level..
We found that the EPC got a worse rating than gas warm air heating when kitting out a small flat with similar panels. We suspect that was down to the software not catering for this form of heating and the assessor ticking the box for storage heating. However, there is no way of knowing unless you’re an assessor.
SAP should change that next year as electric is still seen as dirty. Things are changing.
storage heating would perform better than these as you're using off peak energy (lower carbon)
I want to get rid of highly polluting gas boilers, thus looking at installing more solar and batteries, then switching to IR heaters to the wet areas.
We're here when you need us. We can help with all the elements you mention. Glenn
Yeah, heating the last bit only when needed is great idea, but there's still not a very practical simple way to do that, that is also generally and easily applicable. You can feel the instant warmth from an IR heater, but until the air is also warm you will still be mostly cold. Some people is happy with that, most will not be, in real life. Warming up objects, like sofas, and beds, takes a lot of time to do safely with IR, a lot of time means you use a lot of power for a long time. In reality this system is unlikely to save much energy compared to heating to the desired temperature all the time using a heat pump for most people.
Also, IR heaters is a common cheap product, putting covers on them to make them look better is a HUGE disadvantage if you want to be able to heat up when and where you need it. It's a bit similar to having a towel warmer, you could arge that you can shower in colder water if your towel is warm, and thereby save energy, but most people won't do that.
The part about IR being so natural, and that our bodies is evolved to use that, is complete and utterly nonsense. IR is not more natural than convection, and it doesn't matter. Personally, I'm a mammal, and our bodies has evolved to be able to keep the temperature with food as the source of energy. Radiators in "wet" systems also emit IR for that matter. Also, being heated on one side, and cold on the other is not what most people consider being comfortable, not even if the average temperature the skin experiences is a comfortable temperature, it's about actual comfort, not statistics.
Preventing mould (and mildew) by keeping a lower general temperature, and using IR heaters specifically when and where needed just does not work, no, absolutely not, no way. You can reduce the risk of mould somewhat, on the surfaces that get hit by IR of relevant intensity, other areas will have a HIGHER than normal probability of getting mould and mildew, all else equal. Mould typically grows in places that wouldn't be exposed to significant intensity of IR from such heaters, unless heaters are installed for that purpose, instead of trying to creating comfort. It works like this, increasing the temperature of air makes the relative humidity lower, thereby reducing the chance of creating areas with favorable environment for mould and mildew, as they "like" humidity. A lower general temperature, even with temporary and local "hotspots" doesn't reduce general humidity as much, and thereby is the risk of getting mould increased, not decreased.
Another problem is that the intensity of IR is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source, technically from a point source, and their emitters are better than that in this regard, but still, you'd need huge emitters to create even exposure, to create thermal comfort comparable to just having a comfortable ambient temperature. Heating of the floor is extremely slow and inefficient, unless the emitters are very close to floor, or almost as big as the floor, or of course, focused on the floor.
Claims that their emitters are more efficient than other heaters is just not true. Technically, resistive heaters, which their IR heaters are, are 100% efficient, but, as concentrated high temperature radiators increase losses, mostly due to the high temperatures, they're not generally considered to have a COP (coefficient of performance) of 1, really, but a bit lower than 1. While AC splits can have an average COP of 4, and they can heat the air to a comfortable temperature, quite quickly if dimensioned for it, not just fairly quickly go from to cold to "statistical comfort". They say their claimed superior efficiency is "not a wild claim, it's scientific fact backed by independent study." A single "independent" study, means nothing, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and their claim is extraordinary, their "evidence" is not.
IR heaters are not generally considered a new technology, the idea that they're more efficient isn't generally accepted, because that idea is simply not true. And covering them up in order to make them look nicer makes them worse than usual, especially that instant heat part. In order to have thermal comfort where you go, when you get there someone or something needs to be able to predict where you are going, otherwise the idea doesn't work, until your still at one place for a longer period, or, the general area has been heated up, and then you're back on square one, having wasted a lot of electricity on heating the whole area with very inefficient resistive heating.
Your opinion is noted and you have obviously bought the cheaper version or seen the cheap imports into the UK. It's like buying a car, you get what you pay for.
Th recent testing and University studies are proving that infrared is quicker and half the cost to run than other forms of electric heating. Have you seen the studies?
Sounds interesting Robert, but as an ex-teacher I can't let you get away with descibing the three heaters next to you as "square things"... they are very definitely "rectangular"...
awesome product
I really like the idea of this, panels up out of the way, hidden behind mirrors or pictures, and easier to maintain then a full wet system. excellent stuff.
Didn't put up the Jigsaw links, did we?
With infrared heater providing solution for heating rooms what is the alternative to heating water in the house without installing large water tanks
I wonder if any 'cost over 10-year lifetimes' comparison studies have been conducted, due to the huge disparities between the upfront costs of heat pumps (or gas boilers) versus infrared heating.
Considering infrared has a fraction of the upfront cost, and somewhat higher running costs (the difference would be minimised as these infrared panels need near-zero maintenance, no significant installation/servicing/repairs/part replacements etc typically), my guess would be that smaller households would save money over 10 years by buying infrared panels whereas larger households would save money with gas boilers and heat pumps.
Would one of these keep changing the channels on my television? Asking for a friend.
😁
No: it's the wrong wavelength of IR light. IR remotes operate in the near-IR, just beyond the red end of the visible region of the spectrum (i.e., ~0.7 - 1.0 µm). These panels -- and any other resistive electric heater, they are all "IR" heaters, even those old bar heaters -- all operate in the longwave part of the IR region (their website says 6 - 10 µm).
@@xchopp I think he may have been having a bit of a joke?
Nice implementation of old technology. Only problem currently, is that mains gas is 4p per kWh and electricity is 20p per kWh. Modern gas boilers claim 90 - 95% efficiency (not including pipework losses) and while I suspect these panels will beat that, they will still be much more expensive to run.
Good point Stuart but gas is not going to be implemented after 2025. Also, there is a massive number of people across the UK who cannot use gas or heatpumps and need something which is more economical than everyday storage heaters.
aren't the pipework losses, still heat into the property.
Ok, lots of opinions and very little fact in the comments. I've used these units (not this brand, they are readily available and have been for years), and they do indeed work, but they produce a subtle heat that produces what I call a "zone of warm" around the front of the heater. They heat objects directly, which includes people, but they heat you slowly, you don't really feel it until you realise that you are warm, and you can even overheat in front of one of these.
But, a watt is a watt, and a 1200W FIR panel heater uses the same amount of electricity as any other 1200W uncontrolled heater. They just work more effectively by heating you, not all the air in the room, so you need a less powerful heater to do the same job as a space heater.
All radiant heaters are best suited to areas where there is a lot of air loss, such as a poorly sealed home, or where there are huge volumes of air, such as a workshop, gym etc. You position them directly next to or above the populated areas in the room and they heat the people and immediate surrounding area without having to heat vast volumes of air.
So, they have their uses, but they have their limitations. They are slow to heat up, so not ideal for bathrooms, and if you have more than one or two, you will really see it on your electricity bill.
So, it's horses for courses, really, if you have a requirement these might fit, try one.
One of our organisation members wrote about his experiences with these at netzeroemissions.net/2016/10/03/far-infrared-heating-panels-beautiful-heat-low-energy/ and a followup at netzeroemissions.net/2017/04/14/more-work-on-far-infrared-fir-heating/ (download the docs there, there's lots of info).
But, I have to agree with others here, this is nothing more than advertorial and FC has really lost a lot of credibility here, to the point where I might just unsub and be done with them. Transport Evolved and the Electric Viking do much better reporting on EVs anyway, although FC used to be excellent, it all just seems to have gone downhill in recent months.
This would be nice to have in my bathroom instead of in floor radiant heating. I imagine it would heat the bathroom up very quickly for the cold morning early wake up.
Can a custom picture be printed on the IR heater, be ordered? Such as from a digital photo. Or is stock prints available? Seem like any added cost would attract higher end customers, who want greater customization options IMHO.
Or Is it available as part of an AR Mirror? Such as for dressing rooms at high end fashion shops. For example the shop just got in bathing suits, while its raining and cool that day. But the AR Mirror can show the customer in one the bathing suits on a sunny beach, while IR simulates the feeling of the sun on her skin.
Or for a workout AR Mirror, for those who want be warmed for therapeutic purposes. In gym or at home. To warm their muscles right before or after a workout. Also afterwards it could still be used as an IR heater too, And the AR function could display HVAC and other data (or possibly for videos too?).
Just a few random thoughts on how the tech could be used. Good Luck....
The future may be a directional IR heater (like an antenna array) emitting only to people (using computer vision). This would lower costs a lot.
That sounds dystopian
Sounds like a fun hobby project.
Camera + controllable turntable + a computer to do object detection and tracking.
You can time them to use the solar panel electric and use the house as a thermal storage.
Technical details ???? how does it work ?
It has thin wires which get hot when electricity is put through them. Hot enough to glow and emit infrared. Like the fellow said, it's ridiculously simple.
Well its works for sure on new houses- but what about old old houses. Mine as example 1891. And what about heating water when that normaly is done by a stoker.
We'd be pleased to take a look for you Klaus.
My infrared is great and i have the hot water sorted and works really well.
@@jigsaw.Infrared Cheers tho i see your not here in Denmark so a bit of a long walk .)
I wonder how much they cost to run per hour or day. if it is cheaper than other heating options it would be a game changer .
Compared to heat pump system it is very inefficient. Compared to anything non electric it's cheaper but not more efficient.
Depends how much you pay for electricity. They have an 800 Watt version that will cost the price of kWh X 0.8, so if your cost is 10 cents per kWh, then it's 8 cents for an hour.
Not at all cheaper than a heat pump. In fact resistive heating is well known as the most inefficient way to produce heat from electricity. But cheap to buy and convenient to install. I hate resistive heating.
I wonder if any 'cost over 10-year lifetimes' comparison studies have been conducted, due to the huge disparities between the upfront costs of heat pumps (or gas boilers) versus infrared heating.
Considering infrared has a fraction of the upfront cost, and somewhat higher running costs (the difference would be minimised as these infrared panels need near-zero maintenance, no significant installation/servicing/repairs/part replacements etc typically), my guess would be that smaller households would save money over 10 years by buying infrared panels whereas larger households would save money with gas boulders and heat pumps.
You do not do a cost breakdown or how much electricity this system uses or how much less or more it costs than gas. Why not? Does it not compare well?
I really like this idea, the panels are thin, unobtrusive, can be wall hung and the picture/mirror options will appeal to many. However, £400 is a helluva price for what is just an 800w heater. I'm going to guess most electricians could wire a 100% efficient, wall mounted convection heater (cost about £80) to a PIR switch and hide all the gubbins away for much less than £400. Although that wouldn't have the radiant heating that people find comfortable
'Not just any 800 watt heater, it's a Jigsaw 800 watt heater'.
The tests from Aston university have stated that the 800 watt heater from Jigsaw is twice as quick and uses half the electricity to get a room up to temperature than convection type heaters - the comparable convection heater was a 2 kilowatt heater!
@@glennbillington4879 yeah, but is it an M&S heater?🤣
If that's true then bring it on! The (ancient) physics student in me says 800w of heat is less than 2kw of heat so cannot be faster, but my mind is open!
@Glenn Billington *crickets*
@@bernardfender5147 perhaps those tests were conducted in a typical UK property that's not so well insulated, meaning the convection heater's heat is being lost before it can warm up the furniture and walls of the property because a large % of the warmed air leaks out.
Infrared on the other hand heats the walls and floor etc directly, so there's no need to go through the usual cycle: heat the cold water, pump the water, the hot water heats the air, then the air heats the things.
Yes - they sound great, but I agree - what makes them so expensive......profit? However, I'm all for heating systems that don't require the complications of a wet central heating system.
I think it's correct to say all electric heaters are giving off infra red heat...they are all 100% efficient. 1Kw of heat from any type of electric heater in your house is 1kw of heat in your house. the only thing you can change is the way they spread the heat around and you can control it. ..I had overnight storage heaters they were useless because you had no real control of the heat at all. I control an oil filled electric radiator with a wireless controlled thermostat plug socket, Set the room temp I want and it can be forgotten. Thermostats on the actual appliance aren't very good at controlling room temp because they are too close to the source of the heat.
We've answered your points in a couple of the other comments Peter
Cost of electricity to run IR plus to heat water for the bathroom, heating water by gas it still around the late nineties in efficiency .
You failed to ascertain the key metric. How much does it cost to run? Also, traditional heating heats up the whole room also. Furniture the lot! That’s why it takes so long to heat up a cold house. It’s not just the air you need to heat. Everything draws heat. Interesting product but more information please.
All available on the website. Give us a call, we're happy to talk you through it.
Why do you say it takes so long to heat up a cold room. In comparison with other forms of heating it is much quicker. A recent study from Aston University has stated these facts. Twice as quick and half the cost.
@@glennbillington4879 sorry if I wasn’t clear. I’m not disparaging the system. I merely wanted more facts around the cost of running the system as there was little information given on that. If it heats an entire room up much quicker Thames fantastic! Electricity ain’t cheap though so how would it compare to an oil or gas fired system?
Brilliant- just what we need
If a simple home is heated by each of the methods it will cost so much for each.
68 million people and 28 million dwellings.
So
IR
heat pump and fans and ducts
Gas boilers and fans and ducts
Bar radiators
Gas heaters
Plus installation and maintenance
Each multiplied by number of dwellings
Will tell us savings to the country.
Also rooftop solar PV and a plugged in EV car battery.
This can be a straight forward thing with the data.
It will tell us the dimensions of the future.
Do list assumptions, eg number of rooms, 200 days per year, etc.
I have an IR heater. It's very efficient, but it's still less efficient at heating a space than a gas boiler. If I had solar and a powerwall then that might be different, but those are out of my price range for now.
Surely this is the question of efficiency vs effectiveness? These IR panels are very efficient at converting expensive electric to heat/energy but then so are tradition heating elements. Whereas they are not very effective at heating spaces when compared to a gas boiler (but I don't think they claim to be a space heater). However the overall effectiveness comes down to whether you feel adequately warm or not and then how much it costs to do that when compared to other methods.
@You Tube for some. I live in Manchester, a place not renowned for a lot of sun, and my roof is East-West facing not the optimal South facing. I do have a large free standing garage that faces south, but currently has a flat roof. I have been thinking of putting a peaked roof on that and then solar.
@You Tube Definitely part of the Jigsaw!
@@robthomas7232 Aston University undertook an independent study for three different heating systems. Jigsaw Infrared was the infrared system used in testing.
The Study found:
IR heating system can increase the room temperature to 18 C in 10 mins which are less than the other two heating systems (2000 W and storage and convection) which take 15 and 17 min respectively.
The IR heating system can heat the room temperature to 22-23 C compared to up to 18.5 C for the other two systems.
The IR heating system has an efficiency 2 times higher than the 2000 W and storage and convection heating system.
Therefore, the IR panel used half the energy (50% less) of the storage heater and reached room temp in almost half the time.
@You Tube we only invented a lot of things because we were the world's first industrialised nation. It was simply a case of a headstart. Be careful with British exceptionalism, it's a dangerous mythos.
Made in the UK
Wow!
For now.
Under floor heating is infrared heating. The best form of heating in terms of energy consumption and comfort, would be a heat pump connected to underfloor heating. By the way, in the early days of underfloor heating, plumbers were also embedding pipes into walls and ceilings to get the same results. I believe this practice was dropped because of too many pipes being damaged in these locations
I’m very much inclined to agree with you, with the possible exception of installation cost. For a ground up build or renovation underfloor, particularly with a ground source heat pump, seems a couple of steps ahead.
However the infrared panels offer an opportunity to install a much better system to conventional on a room by room basis and at a fraction of the cost compared to having to rip a house apart. It’s one of those cases where the perfect shouldn’t be the enemy of the good.
@@ballagh Yes, I agree - I wasn't arguing underfloor heating was a better or cheaper option to theses panels, although in a new build it would be. i was just pointing out that underfloor heating is infra-red heating..
I'm thinking a domed panel mounted onto the ceiling that includes a light source🤔🤓
Not a bad idea
@@jigsaw.Infrared 1) Can a custom picture be printed on the IR heater, be ordered? Such as from a digital photo. Or is stock prints available? Seem like any added cost would attract higher end customers, who want greater customization options IMHO.
2) Is it available as part of an AR Mirror? Such as for dressing rooms at high end fashion shops. For example the shop just got in bathing suits, while its raining and cool that day. But the AR Mirror can show the customer in one the bathing suits on a sunny beach, while IR simulates the feeling of the sun on her skin.
Or for a workout AR Mirror, for those who want be warmed for therapeutic purposes. In gym or at home. To warm their muscles right before or after a workout. Also afterwards it could still be used as an IR heater too, And the AR function could display HVAC and other data (or possibly for videos too?).
Just a few random thoughts on how the tech could be used. Good Luck....
I think the OP is riffing on the fact that such devices have existed for decades! My grandparents used to have a combined heater/light in the bathroom
Did I hear correct? £400 for the cheaper 800w panel. SHhiiiiit. I think a £20 2kw fan heater will fulfil my needs.
A quick retrofit solution but not necesarily the cheapest. what about the cost and upheaval of wiring them in? Draught proofing and insulating the building is far more cost effective in the long run.
Improving insulation first is always the most sensible option before installing any new heating system.
Have you had a quote and do you know the costing before making a comment? It would be better to have the draught proofing and insulation anyway but you still need heating.
@@glennbillington How can I have a quote on distant future energy bills? With draught proofing amd proper insulation the heating requirement is far less and you'd be running an old inefficient heating system far less if at all so it will be cheaper.
So go back to incandescent bulbs for the winter? 😂
Passive house standard had to be adjusted when everyone went to led light and tv, all the homes were too cold!
lol :_)
@@That1ufo still can't beat a small 5kw boiler or a heat-pump.
If you added some “exciters” could you turn them into loud speakers as well. That would be really good to try.
Presumably these are far more efficient than regular space heaters? Some numbers would be good.
All in replies to other comments. Plenty of info on the website too.
No, they're exactly the same efficiency, but they can only heat surfaces - not air
@@jrisner6535 secondary heat is convection. So, they do both forms of heat.
@@glennbillington4879 that's inaccurate, almost no convection will be generated. Don't pretend IR can do everything, they're a specialised technology for specific situations
@@jrisner6535 Secondary heat is convection J. It's inevitable that once the infrared is absorbed then any further heat will be convection. Similar to when we sweat, heat from us is basically infrared and then the sweat on our clothes will become convection.
I know someone that heated their small house with these and it cost them £400 a month before the price rises
What is the range of these IR panels?
I WANT ONE.
What is the running cost compared with gas heating.
All available on the website. Give us a call, we're happy to talk you through it.
@@jigsaw.Infrared hi,
Give some examples, eg 3 bedroom house, 2 bedroom bungalow,
Bob
Depends on how you use it mostly.
If you need your entire house heated a heatpump is more efficient.
But if you spend a few hours for the tv each evening and using one of these to just make the sitting area nice and comfertable and shut down all heating in the house this is more efficient.
IR panels == glorified resistor with heating efficiency of a resistor. That's not how you solve energy problem but deepen it. For humanity to reduce risks related to global climate change we need to work on efficiency. For example heat pumps...
Resistive heating actually converts 100% of the energy input to heat so it's pretty good in that sense. The main issue is going to be the need for good insulation in the house or the electricity consumed will be high.
@@SardiPax All losses in electric devices are heat losses therefore the cheapest epectric radiator has the same heating efficiency as the most expensive IR panel, that is 100%.
My comment was aimed to propose that we have devices with higher heat energy transfering efficiency a.k.a. heat pumps with COP's around 4-5 compared with COP of 1 in devices that use Joule losses.
@@SardiPax A heat pump is 300 to 400 percent 'efficient'. Resistive heating is 100
@@OAK-808 The pump itself yes, but you then need to transfer that heat around the house, which uses energy, and also there's the issue (if Air Source) of dealing with low external temps. I'm sure the real efficiency is still well over 100% but for most existing houses the heat pumps will still need resistive heating supplementation at times (to heat the water) further reducing overall efficiency. I'm not arguing against heat pumps, but nor am I deceived by the hype.
And what is your educated understanding of the situation and do you plan to save mankind Ja?
On and on again we go. NOT EVERYONE can have heat pumps.. When will people listen? It is not suitable for millions of people in the UK and when someone finds the be all and all then we need to do our best.
Your remarks are misleading and not fact based at all.
A couple of case studies would help greatly as would comparative running costs as IR uses peak electricity. Not surprising developers and landlords are interested in IR its cheap and easy to install and they don't have to pay the running costs. Interesting though.
Yes the council in Leeds ripped out storage heaters and put IR heaters in as well as electric water heating. The tenants could no longer afford to heat their homes. Awful decision.
@@Rick54K Again, it depends on the control system and what heaters they installed really.
Would be good to see these with batteries, but unlikely to see this from developers and landlords
There is a total lack of journalist challenge here. I'm assuming a lack of case study because anyone ripping out a gas system and retrofitting these at present would see their bills sky rocket. These have a place when all heating is electric but while gas is 4p per kWh and electric is 20p these just don't stack up.
@@mikestrong719 I think there is a good chance that IR heaters are a very poor choice for most homes. They will only be good if you basically live in just a few rooms and you previously heated all the rooms. There is marginal difference between heating with a "standard" resistive heater and an IR panel, you probably feel the heat more quickly with an IR panel, but the "warming from the fabric of the building" will literally take exactly the same amount of energy as a traditional heater.
These panels are an old, well known technology and that was clearly stated. As the UK’s favourite form of heat energy (gas boilers) become more and more expensive to operate, these modern versions of IR have a definite place.
Obviously a well insulated home is the start point, but some heat is still going to be needed and the conversion rate of resistive heating (circa 100%) is very good.
Heating the people and the building directly is more efficient than heating a water mass and pumping it around. This is partly because water has very high latent heat capacity and thus takes about 4 times the input per unit output. It’s usually quicker and more efficient to heat directly than via water.
Bear in mind that the latent heat in water is not wasted once input, in a closed loop device and heat pumps can output greater heat than the electrical input in ideal conditions.
However heat pumps and gas boilers have many drawbacks including a limited lifespan (10-15 years) and expensive maintenance and replacement.
As more houses in UK install solar panels and more of our electricity comes from renewables, efficient electric heating will make sense for many peoples homes.
if your heat-pump isn't outputting more heat than the electrical input its broken.
A problem with this logic is that this instantaneous heat will typically be needed when solar isn't not functioning. I think it is pretty evident that the best solution for long duration heat is a heat pump. This could be to heat water to heat air in a rerversible air con system. The fact is that for every calorie of energy taken from the grid you get 3 out from the heat pump. It must comes down to the whether you need to heat a whole space for a long time or a subset of the space for a short time.
@@matthewpieri9080 I'm thinking of getting IR panels as well as a heat pump. Im going to turn flow temperature down so that It's at its most efficient COP all the time, winter or summer. I.e. trickle charge the house with heat from the heat pump and use the IR panels in the room/s I'm in, using a sensor to switch on the panel.
I'm using a 350W panel right this minute, and it's adequate. 5 minutes before I get up, I ask Alexa to switch it on. It's 0800,, and I'm already getting 1440W from solar.
Good advert for Jigsaw but does not showcase an independent journalism. Are there any real world cost comparisons rather than potential savings as listed on the website?
Do they plug in to a socket?
yes
Remarkable heating system. It should be in every home.
Hi, How far does the heat travel?
It travels Infinitely but the heat sensation decreases a lot as you move away (if the radiation pattern is similar to a sphere)
Be careful with this one. Physics says a kWh is a kWh whether it’s from gas, oil or electricity. Ripping out storage heaters on the Economy 7 tariff to replace with glorified electric bar radiators at peak tariff is nuts. Yes it’s a form of heat but don’t be fooled. After all a passive house can be heated with 13 candles. Credit the solar panels and fabric first for that not this. They look nice though!
I'm with you and Larry Phenis on this. I just don't get it. They are just fancy electric fires. What more does it do that an old style electric fire or convection (fan or otherwise) heater doesn't? With this type of heating you can't get more heat out than the amount of electricity you put in no matter how you package it. When he claims that the infrared radiation bounces round until it is adsorbed by something in the room, exactly the same can be said of the more conventional electric heaters.
On the other hand using the same amount of electricity to run a heat pump should get you around 3 times as much heat for the same running cost.
@@pjaj43 there no infrared, how the hell do there expect to it to get out it's in a enclosed box, Infrared can't pass thought metal anymore than visible light can.
@@barryrogers9862 Not strictly true. All objects, except those at absolute zero, emit (and adsorb) heat radiation (infrared) to some extent. The hotter they are, the more they emit. If you heat a "metal box" above ambient then it will be emitting more than it adsorbs. This is what you feel when you stand near it. Generating heat inside the box transfers it to the outer skin via conduction and the internal radiation from the heater being adsorbed on the inside of the box and thence, transferred by conduction to the outer surface where it is re-emitted, again in the form of infrared radiation.
@@pjaj43 All true Peter, but not direct from the element which take away it one redeeming feature to ability to direct the heat, a flat panel isn't very directional. it produces no more infrared than any other heater at the same temperature, just using buzz words to make look better than it is, at the end of the day it's just an electric heater with no eco credentials and has no place being featured on a channel such as this
@@barryrogers9862 I agree with you completely Barry. I must say that the entire spiel smacked of the snake oil salesman. He was trying to say that his very expensive electric heater was, apart from its looks, somehow better than others. I'm not convinced in the slightest. I'm surprised that Robert was taken in by it and further agree that this had no place on this channel.
I wish these were available on this side of the pond. Got plans to export soon?
I believe they have.
Do a complete house full of Infrared Panels improve your EPC value over ordinary electric heaters.. not storage heaters. You also say a builder can get an improved EPC if combined with solar. What effect on EPC without solar.
Infra-red heat conjures up images of heat lamps - surely it should be producing infra-red light that radiates out? Him saying that its a mat in there seems as if its just an electric wire heater in the form of a spread out mat within the panel!?
He actually said both. That is all it is and infrared heat is a wavelength of light as both you and he mentioned
That's all it is. A coil of wire embedded in a ceramic or glass panel, or whatever panel. Pointless and very expensive to run.
I'd like to see a system that can focus the infra red on the people in the room. That way you could use a lot less power.
There's no magic here. It's a resistive heater in panel form
@@OAK-808 Yes I understand the principal. My feeling is this is not going to be very cost effective unless the property is well insulated but in difficult to insulate properties a directional heater could be more cost effective. I've used radiant heaters and they are very good but they require a lot of power. I wouldn't retro fit these to an existing property, rather spend £8000 on insulation and draught proofing.
That is basicly what this does. If you put a panel above where you sit, you only have to run that panel and the rest of the room does not have to be heated.
Other systems depend on warming the entire space. Especially air based heaters have to heat the entire room, and to a higher temperature because you are missing the radiated heat.
I would like to know how IR heating panels compare to a heat-pump system, efficiency wise,
No comparison. The panels are resistive heaters just like the glowing coils of yesteryear. This is a terrible way to produce heat. In fact, the worst way to produce heat from electricity.
Much cheaper to purchase an IR panel per kw and has 100% conversion of energy. Heat pumps can be 300%-400% efficient but this can drop to around 120% in a British winter.
Heat pump COP is not all it’s claimed to be. The COP figures do not come from real life testing and the COP is often closer to 1:1
An independent study - commissioned by BEIS but written by Cambridge Architectural Research - investigated cost-optimal ways to install electric heating, including infra-red heating, and energy efficiency measures across a 12 housing archetypes, representing 90% of Britain’s 28 million homes. The study found that:
• The total lifetime costs (capital + operating) of infrared heating were found to be competitive, although not cost-optimal in some housing types.
• There were only small differences in costs over 15 years between low- or high-temperature heat pumps, air-to-air heat pumps, infrared or storage radiators.
• Assuming a longer product lifespan (e.g. >20 years) for electric storage heaters and infrared heaters made heat pumps less attractive over the total period of ownership - as heat pumps were assumed to be replaced more frequently.
@@OAK-808 And your experience and living with infrared is? Are you saying the studies in Universities conducted by educated people are wrong?
@@glennbillington4879 I inherited two of them with a tiny house. I use them to sentimentally dry towels in a bathroom. When it comes to 'studies', I don't take their results as gospel because they are not making their assessment criteria absolutely clear. I see no metric for 'comfort', but I do for speed. You know what I'm saying?
You’ve sold me. When is it coming to Australia?
They will be there and thank you for your positivity.
A reverse cycle aircon is far more efficient and can cool the room in the summer. I guess this system has uses in rooms too hard/expensive to service via RC aircon.
I've posted before about IR heating, I'll post again.
I've been using IR heating at work for a couple of decades, for heating large poorly insulated areas it's quite good, but for a well insulated house it would be my choice of last resort, yes it's cheap to install (there are much cheaper heaters around than these), but the running costs are relatively high.
My big worry is that developers will be very interested as they will cut costs, but the consumers and grid will pay the price in the long run.
What heaters are you using in your commercial property. Panel heaters or the high power type? Are they installed with efficiency in mind? Would need to know more before we could reply.
This video is missing one major deciding factor for everyone watching it - cost.
Didn't the chap say £4k for an entire house? Although everyday running cost wasn't mentioned...
Excellent interview and some really useful information.
I’m amazed at some comments from viewers, obviously they didn’t watch the full video and decided to quote comments which are out of context.
The cost of installation is relevant to the size of the room/property and if you had aluminium or glass. Infrared is another example of good heating for your home or office and if you discount it then you are behind the times.
I’ve had infrared for six years now and it’s worked really well, warms up quickly and it saved us a fortune in that time. Thank god i got rid of the storage heaters when i did.
Spread sheets needed!
Does anybody know anything about using IR heat at night or while we sleep. Surely that can't be normal for the body/ healthy.
The infrared from the flat panels is just radiant heat, like from a central heating radiator, only at a temperature of 80 to 125 degrees C, compared with about 50 to 60 degrees C for the former. The peak wavelength is around 9 to 10 microns. Of course, you need to position the heater with respect to your bed so you don’t feel too warm. And you can feel the heat on your skin at 0.5m, when the larger panels are on full. That might be too close for sleeping. Some will allow you to reduce the panel temperature for this reason. I’m a physicist, so have some knowledge, but you can cross-check with others. The other type of infrared heater, the visible and near infrared (NIR) to short wave infrared (SWIR) types use strip or bar elements at much higher temperatures, and these are used for patios, and used to be popular in bathrooms. I suspect the shorter wavelengths from these might dry and crack your skin with prolonged exposure, so this second type is not suitable for sleeping under, and is only for occasional use. But do seek other opinions.
In bed you don't need a heater really. Just put on a blanket.
Nice idea and nice looking units. Not sure onthe price tag and £400 notes for a small unit and £700 for a larger unit, compared to £89-120 for a single large radiator. Suppose you dont have a boiler to worry about and the water leak potential. Not sure how the hot water would work as no space in my new house for any type water cyclinder , does not even have wardrode space in the bedrooms !!!
The loft?
Is this available in America???? Brillant idea!!!
It should be and there are companies making headways i believe.
Notuce they didn't talk about the exact efficiency figures of these
Hi Derek - this is covered in replies to other comments
@@jigsaw.Infrared Those comments are hard to find and STILL there wasn't exact figures given. just something about being 1/3 the electricity use of other electric heat sources. That doesn't help me much. I wanna see real world figures and I wanna see them compared to heat pumps. Electric heat is extremely inefficient and you're doing NOTHING to convince us that you have something truly new and different
@@derekcraig3617 there are replies. There’s studies too and if you’re really interested you can source them like I did before I bought mine.
They cost a fortune, 10x a wet radiator, no efficiency cost saving then
I'm not sure where this information comes from - can you share the source please?
Judging by the comments, this one is almost as controversial as "solar freakin' roadways". For now, I side with the skeptics. I'm having difficulty understanding how, in terms of energy usage, this is different than having a space heater in each room.
Hi, Larry! Um, yes. It seems to be... a stylish electric heater. Pump electricity in one end, heat up some wires, get warmth out of the other end.
Er...
In my experience that's always been a horribly expensive way of doing things, unless you produce all of your own entirely free electricity. And if you can generate endless power, I don't imagine you'd give a hoot🦉about running what amounts to a home full of old-school electric fires in the first place.
I'm not sure I understand the benefits of what's being offered here. Electricity's expensive. Using it for heating is expensive. And?
Ah, nostalgia... My late mum used to have a 'Magicoal' 2-bar electric fire. (No central heating.) She'd only ever use the heating part of it (either 1 or 2 x 1kW resistive heating elements) if she had guests; when alone she'd sit with the cat on her lap and turn on the 'glowing coal' (a 60 watt red lightbulb driving a lightweight circular aluminium propeller by convected heat to give a flickering effect). The artificial glow was some slight comfort in a freezing room, but wrapping up well was the only way to actually keep warm.
Unfortunately it soon got to the stage that even running the 60 watt lightbulb was seen as an unnecessary extravagance, so she just cuddled Boops the cat, who was a tremendous source of comfort and who generated an astonishing amount of free heat over a period of 18 contented, purr-filled years. 🙂
@@EleanorPeterson Thanks for the laugh!
The sun is a radiant heater. Stand in the direct rays of the sun and you will feel warmer than if you stand in the shade. The air temperature around you will be the same but in the shade you'll not have the benefit of the radiant heating.Space heaters typically must first heat the air in the room to bring the space to a comfortable temperature. Radiant heating directly heats the occupants and the surfaces of the room without having to first heat the air. As hot air, NOT heat, but hot air rises, when using space heaters the temperature in a room is stratified with the air at the ceiling level being the hottest. As we are standing or sitting in the middle or lower thirds of the room we have to essentially overheat the air at the ceiling level till we are comfortable down at occupancy level. Heating all that volume of air to keep a person warm is less efficient than heating the person directly.
Our bodies radiate heat to any surface around that is colder than we are and if we feel cold it is because we are radiating more heat than our body is producing at that moment. If you walk down the freezer foods section in a store you will probably feel cold, but if you compare the air temperature in the freezer foods aisle with the air temperature in the rest of the store you will probably find that there is little difference between the readings. None the less the freezer foods area feels colder because, again, we are radiating our body heat to the cold surfaces of the freezer displays.
In houses that have radiant heating typically residents are comfortable at a lower air temperature than in houses with hot air heating. Hot air heating may be in the form of forced hot air, electric space heaters, hot water base boards, hot water radiators or fan forced convectors but primarily they all rely on heating the space through convection of hot air. There is a small radiant component to each of these systems which increases with the surface area of the emitter. For example a large standing cast iron radiator has a lot of surface area and sitting near it will feel warmer than sitting further away from it even though the difference in air temperature between the two locations is not significant. The grill/register of a forced hot air heating system has almost no surface area to radiate heat and so will not provide noticeable difference in comfort.
I think it is universally accepted by those who have experienced it, that radiant heating provides the greatest levels of comfort. Radiant heating usually uses hot water flowing through tubing embedded in the floors walls or ceiling but for small areas such as bathroom floors may use electric resistance cable embedded in the floor. Electric radiant panels using a glass surface with an incorporated electric element were sold, installed and enjoyed by some in the 1950's here in western Canada when electricity was cheap. The first panels here used a proprietary tempered glass patented in France and were very successful but later panels used a glass made without the proprietary glass and due to thermal cycling they eventually would shatter, exploding outwards in a shower of glass and thus ended this style of heating in this area.
Electric radiant panel heaters continued to be manufactured, sometimes as cable sandwiched between sheets of drywall for use in T-Bar ceilings, sometimes as low profile unit to be surface mounted on ceiling or wall but both of these were primarily used for spot heating (above a desk or work station) but never commonly used as the heat for an entire project.
In the 1980's a Scandinavian company ESWA produced a radiant panel that was a foil heating element laminated into a thin plastic film. The film panels were stapled along the edges to the rough framing of the ceiling, interconnected, then covered with a drywall/plaster finish. These radiant ceilings worked well providing comfort and efficient, clean, silent operation making those who had them very happy. Until that is the panels started to break down and fail prematurely and thus ended another era of electric radiant heating.
While electric radiant heating panels were failing, hydronic heating panels were surging in popularity amongst those who could afford them and today this continues to be the premium heating system available. Using plastic tubing laid out in loops on the floor of each room then embedded and covered with a finish surface, each room or area can be individually controlled providing the economy and comfort benefits of a zoned radiant heating system. While water is used to distribute the heat, the heat source can be any or even multiple sources of energy, such as electricity or gas or wood or coal or solar or heat pump. When built as a combination system such as gas/oil/electric, the owner can switch between energy types at the flip of a switch or automatically through software, taking advantage of which ever fuel is the cheapest at a given moment. As hydronic radiant panel systems provide comfort using a relatively low water temperature of 38 to 48 degrees C, maximum, they are well suited to heat pumps allowing the heat pump to operate at low and hence more efficient output temperatures. So there you have it. Radiant heat is the most comfortable form of heating and the most economical and Hydronic Hot Water Heating is the best way to implement radiant heating because it can use any form of fuel or energy. The End.
Except not The End. Hydronic Hot Water Heating is Excelent, but it is old news. It's old technology. It's had it's day, or soon will have. Why, you ask? The answer is Super Power as predicted by Tony Seba. When electricity becomes as cheap as Tony predicts (due to battery storage, solar and wind production) it will no longer make sense to invest tens of thousands of dollars to install a hydronic radiant panel system when it is much simpler, cheaper and easier to gain the same benefits using electric radiant panel systems. While historically some types electric radiant panels have not lasted others have. The simplest is electric resistance cable as is often used for heating the floor in fancy house bathrooms. It is cheap, reliable, silent when operating and unlike hot water tubing in the floor it will not start leaking if ever the house loses power and so freezes up. And as quite as hydronic systems are, there can still be some sound of water flow, pump noise, boiler or heat pump operation.
So now, to sum up, finally. Lets go back to the future as seen in the 1950's and once again and for the foreseeable future, enjoy the benefits of electric radiant heating using what ever type or product is most suitable for the application. I hear that Jigsaw Infrared is doing some nice things these days.
Taking the easy option and following other people is your choice. Ever thought of making an educated decision? There are many forms of data on the internet which supports infrared, even educated University studies have demonstrated its effectiveness against other forms of heating. If you prefer to listen to ill educated sceptics then you may be missing the point Larry.
@@glennbillington4879 OK. Give me some links to the studies.
🌏💚💚💚💚💚💚North Coast NSW will have end 2024 250 passive houses. Jigsaw Infrared will be installed as a picture of St James Whitting 1200x900
Does this actually heat up the air, or is this just heat you feel on your skin?
It heats us and the fabric in the room. Think if it like the sun. That’s why it feels really good.
@@glennbillington I thought the sun heated everything else up as well....... including the air!?
Inside the panels there's a series of coils that get hot when you pass electricity through them. It uses the resistance of the wire, (and therefore the heat the wire produces) to heat the ceramic/glass/whatever panels. Not magic. Not efficient.
Yes it heats everything up. You, the air and the cup you put in front of it. It's a heater.
Turning to convection is a secondary process, once the fabric of the room is warm that will take place.
@@OAK-808 the main component of air is nitrogen/oxygen and they're transparent to IR unless it contains very high humidity. The heating of the air is secondary once the IR radiation has heated up a surface.
there website doesn't show comparative costs to gas or indeed standard electric storage heaters. they say on there website 30% more efficient ('studies show'). this is vague and anyway not particurlary good.sounds much more expensive than gas and cost is the metric that will get most people to switch.
like a Tesla car, we all love them and would buy one if we could get one for £5k on the second hand market.
another energy product for the rich only it seems.
The study shows Jigsaw Infrared is twice as quick and half the cost of storage heaters. The study is being released very soon. Before you ask, it was carried out in a controlled environment at a University.
@@glennbillington4879 great but storage heaters are renowned by being very expensive. they need a comparison with gas if they want people to switch..
@@gazlives That is coming but not everyone has gas. There are hundreds of thousands of people who need to use electric.
Add to that, a great number of people are adding solar and battery so they won't be reliant on the grid or the gas board.
@@glennbillington4879 that a good point it can persuade those on electric already. I'd like to be comparable with gas, esp. in uk with so many on gas.
I think one thing which confuses people is efficiency of electric heating, even a tungsten light bulb is a near 100% efficient heater. You won't use much more electricity heating your home with a 12 quid fan heater from the local Screwstation or Toolfix than the most expensive "ceramic" heater commonly advertised in newspapers and on here, there is an awful lot of BS around this.
There is no technology out there that is going to be significantly more effective than simply running an electric current through a wire so it gets hot, its 100 % or very close as it is. No amount of ceramics, graphene, carbon fibre, laser or quantum flam flam can be any better per Wat than we have already with a three bar electric fire. Although it might look nicer and present the heat in a more agreeable way.
Electricity is an incredibly efficient heater by just running it through a resistance even something designed to do something different like TV or an Audio amplifier are quite efficient room heaters.
A fan heater doesn't radiate heat onto you. It is not the same thing.
Compare it to sitting outside on a chilly day. In the shade you are cold while sitting in the sun the air temperature is the same but you still feel warm and cozy.
It is more efficient because you don't need to heat all the air in a space or building and still be equally comfertable.
I see a lot of opinions, but I would want to experience the devices in action. I think they would be much faster than wet radiators and the energy is going to stay inside the room rather than going through convective air heating which then heats the content of the room by conduction (if the air doesn't blow away or rise to the ceiling) A classic example would be one of those days when outside and the sun shines on you and you feel warm immediately even if the air is cold. The moment the sun goes behind a cloud you feel cold. All this needs is a battery to hold the energy so that you can use off peak electricity. Curiously I just remembered, (probably Tomorrow's World), electric wall paint.
Yes Jim.
These must be stupid questions because so far I cannot find answers online; Are the panels hot to the touch? What is their maximum surface temperature? Are they safe around children and animals?
90°C
No, mount them on the ceiling.
Is this resistive heating? If it is then heat pumps are far more efficient.
Absolutely!
Fully Charged not looking at the inefficiencies, only the shiny new sponsored content.
We need to look at efficiency and lifetime cost of ownership, not just upfront cost. This is an expensive and inefficient way to heat your home.
The only benefit is that you get instant heat.
The other principles that they suggest in the video apply to heat pumps as well - insulate and have thermally efficient windows.
I guess that it did say "includes paid promotion". I missed that. I go to Fully Charged for trustworthy information. Now I have to wonder if what is being reviewed is simply an advert. Extremely disappointing. How on earth does this product Care for the Planet if it is simply an inefficient resistive heater.
well they are 100% efficient, the problem is the fuel costs 25p/kwh.
Heat pumps are 300 - 450% efficient.
These can still be more efficient in actual use though. These work locally and require air temperature to be substantially lower to be equally comfertable.
Heat pumps need to heat entire spaces to higher temperatures to reach the same comfort level.
If you want electric radiant heat buy an oil filled panel heater or a bar heater at a fraction of the price. Electricity for radiant heat is approximately 4 times more expensive than gas for central heating (or heat pumps) as it uses electricity immediately probably at the most expensive time of the day. Maybe if you can afford a battery large enough (60+kwh) to store one days worth of energy and charge that when prices are low then it may be worth it. I suspect that as electricity gets cheaper because of wind, solar and nuclear generation then the price difference to gas will get smaller in which case this may work. This systems only advantage is the control, but that is not game changing.
Aston University undertook an independent study for three different heating systems. Jigsaw Infrared was the infrared system used in testing.
The Study found:
IR heating system can increase the room temperature to 18 C in 10 mins which are less than the other two heating systems (2000 W and storage and convection) which take 15 and 17 min respectively.
The IR heating system can heat the room temperature to 22-23 C compared to up to 18.5 C for the other two systems.
The IR heating system has an efficiency 2 times higher than the 2000 W and storage and convection heating system.
Therefore, the IR panel used half the energy (50% less) of the storage heater and reached room temp in almost half the time.
Don't think it will stay that way RE: expense of electricity vs. gas. It has been rumoured that the government will shortly be announcing the moving of levies from electricity (e.g. smart meter rollout costs) to gas.
@@jigsaw.Infrared How fast you can heat the room means nothing. Heat energy is heat energy and if heat pump can pump 4kJ of heat energy into isolated place with 1kJ of electric power you used 1kJ of electric energy to gain 4kJ of heat energy. If you want to have the same heating effect you will need to consume 4kJ of electric energy with IR panels. Therefore they are much less efficient.
@@jamislil2703 The heat pump is heating water to heat air. Water takes a lot of energy to heat. Water requires 4.2KJ of energy to heat 1Kg by 1ºC. Air or brick, the fabric of the building as an example, takes around 0.7KJ of energy to heat 1Kg by 1ºC. Therefore, the 4:1 ratio of a heat pump is being lost in the very energy-hungry process of heating water.
@@jigsaw.Infrared I agree but if you are heating a house for example you will need to heat everything in the house to the same temperature to have the constant temperature. If you have a thermostat with constant temperature everything is already heated to the same temperature except outer walls that cool because of their non zero heat transmittance. So heating the house is a match between a loss of heat energy provided by heat transmittance between outer walls and outside air and your ability to supplement that lost heat energy. And heat energy transfer is lossless aka. if you heat one kilo of water for one kelvin above the themperature of the surroundings and wait all the heat energy that was transferred to water will be transferred to the air and therefore heat it.
If gas cost per kWh was identical to electric cost per kWh, then it would be cheaper for electric heating - especially when you add in the smart features. I suspect that gas costs will continue to rise so that we are forced into switching to electric heating.
Spot on Antony, it's great to see a positive response from someone who knows what they are talking about.
In the UK, the government has a 23% tax on electricity (+VAT) for domestic customers, whilst gas only has 1.9%. That was about right when we burnt coal and oil to make electricity, but now the pollution caused to generate electricity is about the same as the pollution caused to burn gas at home, so these taxes should be equal.
If they can find a way to heat up water why would we need gas boilers in our properties 🇬🇧
It's only clean heat if the electricity it uses is from sustainable energy
Thanks, but I'll stick with my woolly hat (£0.38). I knitted it myself, too!
All I need now is some clothes to go with it... 😲
Enjoy your woolly hat, seems like you will need several layers of clothes..
That's a very good value hat. My warm hat cost 35 quid! (It is a really nice posh gore windstopper hat which is so good it's almost worth the ridiculous price).
Use multi antennae microwaves to heat the flesh. Goggles required to prevent eyeballs boiling.
It's a bit ironic really, talking about getting rid of gas boilers, yet it's ok to use gas power stations to provide these heaters with electric. 👍
Well, the issue there isn't the electric heater, it's the fact that the UK still has too much fossil fuel generation. But that's changing, just like it is in most places, and just like EVs, as the grid gets cleaner, so does your heating, but a gas boiler is always going to pollute the same, or worse as it ages, plus you run the risk of dying from CO poisoning and a shortened lifespan from breathing particulates. Getting rid of a gas heater is a no-brainer, really.
In Australia, the most popular heating is now reverse cycle air con, there are some really efficient units, the two best probably being Daikin and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (not Mitsubishi Electric, which are the cheaper, crappier brand). Even at sub-zero outdoor temps they can have pretty good CoPs.
@@ledsalesoz electric is too expensive compared to gas, plus the UK has had to fire up coal power stations.
The UK grid can only just cope at the moment, without chucking millions of battery cars and electric heating at it. And that has nothing to do with the current situation is been like that for years.
Looks like they have a real cost effective solution to home heating and permanantly getting away from gas boilers! #stop burning stuff 😄
I truly wish that were true. Electrical heating is a solution, though electric heat pumps are almost certainly more efficient than radiating panels.
We are currently designing a passive house heated solely with infra-red mats. It is a very flexible and easy to install system, however it should not be underestimated, that the key issue is the source of electricity. In our case we use integrated PV panels which generate sufficient amount of energy to cover the power demand. It would be very misleading to sell this technology as green and sustainable if the power was generated by a conventional fossil fuel power plant.
Another point is that, compared to conventional underfloor heating linked to a heat pump, we cannot use the infra-red system for cooling.
The cost of heating our home halved as we previously had storage heaters.
Isn’t installing the mats a totally different method? It’s more expensive than panels I’m led to believe.
Have you price Jigsaws panels to compare the cost difference?
@@glennbillington The principle of the system we use is identical to the one used in panels, the main difference being that the infrared mat is placed directly under the flooring and not integrated into an aluminium panel. The mats could also be used on a ceiling or a wall. An advantage of mat over a panel is a more even heat distribution in a room. On the other hand if there is any breakdown or damage to the circuit you have to replace the entire floor. With a panel any breakdowns are much easier to fix.
i need to get this off my chest. I sell double and triple glazing. Triple glazing is not always the best for heat retention in your house. Yes, it is better at keeping the heat in. You only need to look at u value for that. But it stops natural light and heat coming in because it has 3 panes of glass. Free energy. Look at the g value. Overall triple glazing is best on the north side of the property where you do not get as much energy from the sun and double glazing is better in the east-west and south so you can harness free heat from the sun. Triple is great in countries like Norway Denmark and Iceland because they go long periods without much sun. The reality is the introduction of triple glazing broke the EPC(energy performance certification) in the UK for windows. Infra red heating looks great mind.
Taking care of heat loss is the first step. Passive solar needs to be made more of, agreed. There are many pieces to the jigsaw.
Great feedback John.
Rubbish! Infrared and blackbody heaters have been around for years. Also, some shops had them fitted these are not new just a different type. They may have a very small place in the market, if the heat loss of the room is 3KW per hr then you need 3KW per hr to maintain it once you have used say 5KW per hr to get it to the right temperature.
Agreed. This is an advert for a specific company paying Fully Charged to get the word out about their resistive heating panels.
Thats a very open statement Alan. What is rubbish? What are you stating a fact about?
Is it rubbish that infrared is used or that it is a better option than many other methods of electric heating?
Or it rubbish because you do not understand it?
You talk about heat loss as though your profane to be an expert, is that the case and if so then you may be able to help the infrared companies make some improvements? Or all heating companies out there?
However, if there is heat loss then it is better to put that right before any form of heating is installed.
The place in the market may be small but as the people are educated they may wish to have infrared installed. Is that for you to decide with your negative attitude.
As I've said several times now. It will take many different ways to help this situation and infrared is down to the choice of the customer and you stating things to be rubbish does not mean you are right. In fact, I would call you out and say you are 100% wrong!
@@OAK-808 the second pert of your statement sounds incorrect. I don't thing Robert would be associated with such a paid advert. He's a funny bloke alright but that doesn't mean he has the morals of the PM. Quite the opposite, I think he is a decent and honest person.
Surely this has to be LESS efficient than storage heaters since it is the same resistive heater as storage without the storage! Looks like old technology with the words 'infrea red' added.
Maybe not. There's obviously going to be inefficiencies in storing it in the storage heater and bringing it back out again.
@@Hyfly13 It's a resistive heater and therefore an inefficient way of producing heat. The video is an advert for a fashionable item that in the future will have very limited uses. Certainly not heating an entire house. Convenient and easy, but woefully inefficient.
Interesting to see, although I'm not convinced about the 'heating the fabric' comments. I would say that whilst it might be less efficient, wet underfloor heating used over the whole floor area would create an even heat that will warm the fabric. If the building is modern/well insulated then the flow rate and temperature could both be reduced to a very 'background' level.
These certainly have a place in ecclesiastical buildings as pulling up stone flags to lay underfloor is not a very useful option.
One of the issues with wet underfloor is heat up and response times. Sure if you are going to leave on a basic background heat that has some validity. How many householders are going to be happy with a basic background heat instead of actually being warm? I think the point to note is that there isn't a one size fits all heating solution. We're one part of the Jigsaw of heating solutions as is wet under floor heating.
Is this something you have ever tried? Your comments are more about other forms of heating and it would be good to understand your expertise?
I've never tried infrared but have carried out a whole house retrofit with slab/insulation/wet underfloor/screed/porcelain tiles (with aluminium triple glazing, MVHR and external wall insulation) and can't imagine how this could beat the low flow temp, topping up the building as required with the underfloor set up. Temperatures are stable and it's really been a complete game changer in terms of how comfortable our (originally) leaky 1929 detached 3 bed is to live in. Just need to get rid of the gas once the cost of other electric alternatives comes down to a reasonable cost.
I'm sure there are use cases for infrared but I can't imagine it could compare to the gentle top up heat, coming from below, across the whole floor area.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I guess we're going to need all the solutions we can get to move towards space heating that can be powered by 100% renewably generated electricity 👍🏻
(and made in the UK, that's novel but so welcome).
@@glennbillington Not sure if you were asking me, although I'm a Building Surveyor in case you were asking me. Like I said, I've got no issue with the product as they certainly have a place, but it won't be able to 'heat the fabric' quite as simply as the interview stated.
It's not a heat pump though so only 100% efficient rather than 300-400%. Aren't we being conned into thinking these are more efficient than they really are?
Not sure 'conned' is the word, but clearly heat pumps are a better use of electricity to generate heat - but this is not aimed at people who have that as an option - though you could achieve a similar effect with a £25 halogen heater stuck to the ceiling with a motion sensor switch! ^oo^
Heat pumps are not always suitable due to current prices (10k), space, etc. Such solutions like a modular system and less costs are all making such products a good option for many. Not for everyone but for many :)
Heat pump COP is not all it’s claimed to be. The COP figures do not come from real life testing and the COP is often closer to 1:1
An independent study - commissioned by BEIS but written by Cambridge Architectural Research - investigated cost-optimal ways to install electric heating, including infra-red heating, and energy efficiency measures across a 12 housing archetypes, representing 90% of Britain’s 28 million homes. The study found that:
• The total lifetime costs (capital + operating) of infrared heating were found to be competitive, although not cost-optimal in some housing types.
• There were only small differences in costs over 15 years between low- or high-temperature heat pumps, air-to-air heat pumps, infrared or storage radiators.
• Assuming a longer product lifespan (e.g. >20 years) for electric storage heaters and infrared heaters made heat pumps less attractive over the total period of ownership - as heat pumps were assumed to be replaced more frequently.
Additionally, Aston University undertook an independent study for three different heating systems. Jigsaw Infrared was the infrared system used in testing.
The Study found:
IR heating system can increase the room temperature to 18 C in 10 mins which are less than the other two heating systems (2000 W and storage and convection) which take 15 and 17 min respectively.
The IR heating system can heat the room temperature to 22-23 C compared to up to 18.5 C for the other two systems.
The IR heating system has an efficiency 2 times higher than the 2000 W and storage and convection heating system.
Therefore, the IR panel used half the energy (50% less) of the storage heater and reached room temp in almost half the time.
No, you are not, the experts in the Universities have stated infrared is efficient and you should try it. Heat pumps are heat pumps and will break down in time and then the efficiency will become less and less. Then you’ll have to replace it.
@@jigsaw.Infrared No point in trying to rewrite science.
If the electric heating is 100% efficient and gas is 85% the gas is still more efficient (for now) because the electricity being produced is coming from a gas power station which is only 50% efficient and then you have transmission loss ontop of that
It is true that renewables and nuclear combined make up around 50% of the UK's electricity production, but any additional load put on the grid will almost exclusively be covered by gas power stations, that being said once the grid nears 100% renewables we can't then swap out every homes heating instantly and switch every petrol car for an electric one instantly so these projects will have to happen somewhat simultaneously
Is this a subjective remark to mark without any objective evidence?
@@glennbillington what part of my evidence is subjective?
@@olivergunn2796 all of it.
@@glennbillington electric heating is 100% efficient due to no energy loss, A rated boilers are over 90% efficient (also there will be other losses due to circulating the fluid around) most modern gas power stations are between 50 and 60% efficient according to science direct, the exact grid mix can be found at grid.iamkate but is generally speaking 25% renewables 25% nuclear and 50% fossil and the idea that additional load on the grid will be met exclusively by gas is based on basic logic as nuclear nor renewables can be increased as demand picks up
Yes I've generalised numbers and that but everything I've said has been based firmly in reality
You can just choose a Green electricity supplier