Far Infrared heating panels – if only EPC rules were logical

Perhaps you have pointed to the problem with the heaters ... they don't heat the air so you have to position yourself in front of them to get any benefit. EPCs are done for the benefit of incoming occupants. Sticking an infrared panel in may be OK for you but if they want to sit/stand elsewhere then there is an obvious issue.

All electric heaters are 100% efficient in converting electricity to heat. To say that panels are more efficient is incorrect which is why EPC's treat them in the same way as other forms of electric heater.

I use these now and think they are very good.
My tenants love them too. I want to carry on buying them and they are great at helping to remove humidity too. Perhaps it would be good idea to write to the EPC body and see if they are considering any changes to their measurement process?

No form of heating will remove humidity, ventilation is the key to removing humidity or some form of active device such as a dehumidifier. All the heaters do is move condensation from one place to another.
These heaters may be effective but they have to obey all the basic laws of Physics.

Reply to the comment left by David Price at 01/05/2018 - 07:54
If you keep the moisture in the air (by keeping temperature up), there’s better chance of ‘natural’ ventilation, e.g. when the front door is opened, siding its removal. If the room is cold and it condenses on the cold walls, that expulsion of moisture when the door is briefly opened won’t occur. They’re not actively dehumidifying, but certainly help.

Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 01/05/2018 - 08:08
Luke whilst I agree with your comment it is not related to the type of electric heater. No heater in itself will reduce the amount of water in the room, as you point out ventilation is the key.
As a physicist I take issue with comments such as "the heater is more efficient", it's not, all electric heaters are 100% efficient in converting electricity into heat, hence the EPC treats them all in the same manner. Different forms of heater may be more effective in some situations but they are not more efficient.
The law of conservation of energy applies to landlords, even the government cannot legislate against it.

The debate in this country is around the cost of heating houses now that energy prices are high. It should be around why we need to heat houses in the first place. If a house is properly built with the correct insulation, draft proofing and ventilation strategy then very little heat over that produced by domestic activities is needed. Not much consolation to occupiers of our current housing stock so attempts to produce a nice living environment are at best a compromise without significant retrofit expenditure. Insulate without draft proofing and you loose your gains to drafts, Insulate and draft proof and you have bad air quality so you need a ventilation strategy. To keep the gains you need that strategy to include heat recovery. Not an economic proposition for a landlord who doesn't pay the fuel bills!
Our building regs are poor and EPCs reflect that.

Reply to the comment left by Geoff Cunningham at 30/04/2018 - 13:43
Actually if positioned and correctly rated for the room size they can be likened to a light bulb. As a light bulb bathes the room in visual light then so does the far infra red panel bathe the room in far infrared invisible light which is the heating part of the spectrum. So no you don't have to stand in front of it to gain the benefit...and you don't get the temperature difference from head to toe in a room and therefore no cold feet.

Reply to the comment left by David Price at 30/04/2018 - 20:39
The efficiency of converion is not in question However, the dictionary definition of Efficient is 'Working or operating in a way that gets results you want with minimum waste, effort or expense.' So if one can obtain a level of comfort heat ( the result you want) by Far InfraRed with less electricity because it is on less and at lower air temperature which equates to less expense then they have to be more 'efficient' based on the dictionary definition.

Reply to the comment left by Norman Devereux at 07/05/2018 - 11:45
The dictionary gives the everyday definition of efficiency which when used in the context of electric heaters leads to confusion. Talk about effectiveness by all means but not efficiency, electric heaters are all 100% efficient - ask any physicist.
I see the word efficiency used to advertise electric heaters giving the false impression that one heater uses less electricity than another to produce the same amount of heat, absolute nonsense.
And while we are on the subject, electricity is not a source of energy, just a convenient way of transporting energy from the generator to the user, the source is the coal or solar or wind etc used in the generation.