Underfloor heating beneath floorboards

e.g. more electricity, higher running costs and greater environmental impact.

This is a question of the concept.

Our implementation is CO2 neutral and as long as there is a feed-in tariff, it is also cost-neutral over the course of the year.

Wood (for the basic stove) comes from our own forest (beech) behind the house. It regrows more than we need. No long transport routes. Modern stoves have no soot problems as long as the wood quality is good. Photovoltaic production approx. 9800 kWh per year. In the balance, more than we need if we use the infrared modules out of convenience instead of the stove.

Whether the acquisition is cheap or expensive depends entirely on the material, provider, and execution. Aesthetics cost a surcharge with photovoltaics just as with stoves. There is room for maneuver. You have to want and find a property with forest.

Oh, so you already have an infrared heater and you find it comfortable?
I have admittedly only experienced it once so far, in a kfw40 prefabricated house. I found it terribly unpleasant and couldn't have stayed there long.
The electricity consumption of a heat pump is also much lower - but the investment is of course higher as well.

Tried, found good, and now under construction. The infrared panels are technically not necessary (except for the bathroom), they serve convenience in case you are sick or don’t feel like heating, and for frost protection when leaving in winter. The covered terrace also benefits from infrared panels for "longer outdoor sitting." The main heating source is a masonry stove, which keeps electricity consumption within limits.

Whether you warm something from the inside or from the outside doesn't matter. As a result, the air at this surface warms up and you have convection.

I won't even comment on the nonsense of considering wood fires CO2 neutral. Oil and coal are also trees in a different form. Just saying.

In the end, the temperature is decisive for the indoor climate. Which heating achieves it is irrelevant.

I no longer comment on the nonsense of considering wood fires to be CO2 neutral. Oil and coal are also trees in another form. Just saying. l

Wood fires produce CO2. Trees absorb CO2. Those who regrow what they burn are CO2 neutral in the balance. That is exactly our local cycle on our own property. The cycle is CO2 neutral, not the wood fire. You have jumped to a conclusion too quickly.

Cycles are always neutral at the end of a cycle. So what use is the statement?

The fact is, burning wood is just as bad for the climate as burning oil, coal, and gas. If a living tree is cut down for it, even worse.

In the end, everything is a cycle. What happens along the way is what matters.