Infrared heaters throughout the entire house?

and the heating energy is achieved with the photovoltaic system.

So far so good, if you heat in the summer. Otherwise, you need a huge system to be able to heat with the solar radiation values in winter.

I found the heat from the infrared heater unpleasant. Spotwise very warm and also quite slow to warm up a room.

I find the heat from infrared heaters extremely pleasant - as long as I am not directly irradiated. On the other hand, I don’t like underfloor heating. To each their own.

Every type of heating requires good planning and the unconditional consideration of your preferences and needs,

Absolutely: The placement of the infrared heating areas must be considered from the very beginning in the architecture. Even though the acquisition costs are lower - the operating costs are significantly higher than other solutions such as a heat pump. Why we still chose infrared in our house - quite simply: We love radiant heat. The infrared heater is also only a backup for the masonry heater and the convenience heating system in the children’s apartments. These were 17 and 19 years old when we moved in, so it is foreseeable that these apartments will not be used permanently.

I really don’t know what you have against smaller houses. At every opportunity, you bash them.

The topic of infrared heating I only inquired about because I can’t quite imagine it. I’ve never heard of anyone heating their entire house with it. There must be reasons for that. I only know it as a supplementary heating system.

What speaks against wanting to supply a small house with climate-friendly energy, I also haven’t understood yet. Living space and energy production are two completely different things. On the contrary, I find it even important and forward-looking. And as long as the additional costs and the extra subsidies roughly balance each other out, why not. The maybe 5000 EUR extra cost (compared to without KFW subsidy and gas heating) I simply count as idealism.

What speaks against wanting to supply a small house with climate-friendly energy anyway, I still haven’t understood. Living space and energy generation are two completely different things. On the contrary, I even find it important and forward-looking.

You are on a great path with your thoughts. Small house, climate-friendly energy. That fits.

When heating with electricity, there are a few pieces of information that are simply worth noting:
1. Electric heating systems vary in efficiency. A heat pump (heat pump) is 2-4 times more efficient in heating output than an infrared panel – which is why many builders prefer the heat pump over other electric heating systems.
2. Infrared panels generate radiant heat, while the heat pump either warms a mass via a underfloor heating system and thus creates convection or heats air directly. The radiant source heats objects in its surroundings and uses them as storage. If you are in the direct radiation field, a direct feeling of warmth arises, like by a fire or the sun. The air temperature in houses with radiant heat sources is usually perceived as comfortable from 19 degrees Celsius. This somewhat relativizes the efficiency difference but does not eliminate it.
3. Energy is only climate-friendly if it is generated in a climate-friendly way. Since photovoltaic systems produce too little electricity for heating during the heating period with economically sensible dimensions and long-term storage is still very expensive, additional electricity has to be purchased. No reason to do without a photovoltaic system, but the belief that it provides the heat during the heating period should not be too strong.

In a small and energy-efficient house, I can still well imagine heating in a climate-friendly and efficient way with the pleasant radiant heat. For this, the infrared units would have to radiate from the outside wall onto a good storage mass towards the center of the house (everything going out towards the window is lost; windows do not block the infrared radiation). It would also be advantageous not to direct radiant heat directly onto a living area. You can calculate that once.

It was always a pleasantly warm 24°C in the house. Everything was controlled via the inverter, we didn't need the heating element. :)

Running that with an air-to-water heat pump is really "tough." You don't need the heating element either. But these heat pumps require ultra-low flow temperature, especially with such a high desired room temperature, otherwise you'll pay through the nose. That makes the systems very sluggish. I was recently at some friends' place with a pellet heating system, which is a pretty cool thing compared to these heat pump heating systems. However, it costs quite a bit more (initially, the heating medium is cheaper).

What is the name of the construction company again that suggested that to you?

Underfloor heating is nowadays common not only because it saves energy, but also because it is very comfortable spatially, as you no longer have any disturbing elements on the walls.

I also once considered infrared for occasional additional heat, but I think it is a misplanning for more, especially in the new construction sector as the main heating system.

Best of all worlds: we have wall heating and wood chip heating. :)