Build Simpler. Make Better Economic Decisions.

Two days at the NFG Future Summit in Berlin. Nearly 500 participants from construction, real estate, industry, start-ups and politics. Many new ideas – and a surprising number of familiar problems.¹

I attended in my role as an advisory board member of Vitramo. One conversation at the stand captured very well what many business owners and real estate developers are now looking for. One visitor put it roughly like this:

“Infrared heating is becoming increasingly interesting for us. We now want to start a project in this direction. The technology we currently use is too slow, too expensive and too complex. But we need an integrated solution – not just a different heating system. Who can provide that?”

That is a strong question. It is not asking for another piece of equipment. It is asking for a system that works as a whole.

In my view, this question belongs on the agenda of executive teams, CFOs, developers and owners. Buildings are not collections of separate technical trades. They are long-term business systems.

NFG summarised the ambition of the summit well: “From problem to solution. From working alone to working as a team.”¹ This is precisely where innovation either remains an interesting presentation or starts creating value in real projects.

Reduction Does Not Mean Compromising Quality

One point was reinforced for me in Berlin: reducing complexity must not be confused with reducing quality. The official title of Gerd Priebe’s keynote was “Reduction as a Principle: A Mindset for Economical, Resource-Efficient and Future-Ready Construction.”²

For me, reduction means challenging anything that creates cost and interfaces without delivering demonstrable value. That may include oversized systems, duplicated control layers, unnecessary distribution networks or functions that are barely used once the building is operational.

The objective is not a building designed to the absolute limit. Safety, health, fire protection, structural integrity, indoor air quality and a robust electrical infrastructure are non-negotiable. But there is often a significant gap between necessary quality and habitual complexity.

Simplicity does not result from merely leaving things out. It results from clarity.

This is also where Germany’s Building Type E approach is relevant. It is not an energy standard and does not prescribe a specific technology. It is a planning approach that allows clients and project teams to make more deliberate decisions about requirements, function, risk and accountability. That freedom only works if decisions are professionally justified, transparently explained and clearly agreed.

Why Infrared Heating Is Becoming More Relevant – but Cannot Be Considered in Isolation

It does not surprise me that business owners are taking a serious look at infrared heating again. In buildings with very low heating demand, a direct electric solution can significantly simplify investment, distribution systems, plant space, controls and maintenance.

But this is neither a blank cheque nor a general recommendation. Infrared heating can only be part of a sound solution if the building envelope, solar shading, indoor air quality, hot water, usage profile, actual heating load and electrical infrastructure fit together.

That is why I believe it is wrong to start the comparison with the heating system and end it there. The right question is not: Which heating system is theoretically the most efficient? The right question is: Which overall system will perform the task reliably and economically over 20 to 30 years?

In one model calculation I developed, I assess a 150-square-metre building for four people with a heating demand of 18 kWh/(m²·a). At such a low demand level, space heating is only one part of the electrical system. Hot water, household and general electricity, and mobility must be considered as well.

The detailed study is not included with this article. I therefore deliberately refrain from presenting a complete set of results or making general return claims here. What matters is the underlying logic: it is too narrow to align the entire building strategy with the maximum efficiency of one heating appliance.

Do not optimise the heating system in isolation. Organise the entire building economically.

CAPEX and OPEX Belong in the Same Decision

In project discussions, the initial investment is often addressed first. Energy consumption, maintenance, spare parts, plant space, service contracts and modernisation follow later. From a business perspective, they belong together.

A system with lower energy consumption is not automatically the most economical solution. If it requires significantly more capital, additional distribution infrastructure, more components and higher replacement costs, the efficiency advantage must first earn back this additional burden over the asset’s life cycle.

Conversely, the lowest initial investment is not automatically the right choice. A poorly planned system that is difficult to upgrade or operate can become considerably more expensive later.

A sound decision therefore requires at least five perspectives:

A robust decision does not result from comparing individual devices. It requires a life-cycle cash-flow assessment.

The Business Case Emerges from the Integrated System

My model evaluates different electrical supply concepts over 25 years. Space heating, hot water, household electricity, photovoltaics, storage and electric mobility are assessed together. The model includes investment, maintenance, replacement, cost of capital and requirements at the grid connection.

This is also how a battery storage system must be assessed. Its economics cannot be derived reliably from additional household self-consumption alone. Combined with photovoltaics, charging infrastructure, time-variable tariffs, peak-load limitation and intelligent energy management, storage can perform several functions at the same time.

If it enables more on-site electricity use, shifts charging demand, reduces peak loads or avoids an expensive grid-connection upgrade, storage can improve the IRR and NPV of the overall system. Under a different usage profile, the result may be different.

The decisive question is therefore not: What is the return on the battery in isolation? The relevant question is: What additional economic contribution does it make within the integrated system of generation, building, mobility and grid?

A project-specific investment decision requires real quotations, load profiles, generation data, charging profiles, demand charges, replacement cycles, financing and potential grid-upgrade costs. A model creates clarity. The project determines the outcome.

Less Complexity Requires More Accountability

Werner Sobek’s perspective is relevant to me because it shifts the focus from the individual product to materials, energy, emissions and the full life cycle. Sobek calls for building emission-free for more people with less material.³

I do not take this as a ready-made technical solution. My own business conclusion is:

As little complexity as possible. As much robust infrastructure as necessary.

My approach is All-Electric. Not as a rigid product package and not as a demand for more technology. To me, All-Electric means planning electricity, heating, hot water, mobility and control as one system from the outset. The electrical infrastructure must be robust and upgradeable. Generation and flexible loads must be coordinated intelligently. Core functions must continue to work even if an app, cloud platform or central controller fails.

Reducing technology must never compromise health, safety, comfort or legal certainty. Low-tech is not an end in itself. The right technology is the technology that performs a necessary function reliably and economically.

This requires more entrepreneurial accountability. The client, planning team and contractors must make clear why a component is needed, which value it creates and who remains responsible for its function over the life cycle.

The Real Question Is: Who Delivers the Integrated System?

After two days in Berlin, my position has been reinforced: we do not need another product list. We need a clear decision logic and someone who assumes responsibility for the integrated system.

We should not ask how much technology can be installed in a building. We should ask which building we actually need for its use, capital structure and operation.

We should not look for the highest theoretical efficiency figure. We should select the system that remains economically sound under realistic assumptions.

And we should not wait for perfect regulation or the next subsidy programme. We need projects in which responsibility is accepted, assumptions are transparent and decisions are carried through into implementation.

Less technology can create more value – but only when more thought, calculation and decision-making come first.

This is where my entrepreneurial sparring starts. I bring requirements, technology and economic logic to the same table. We assess CAPEX, OPEX, risk and life-cycle value before an idea becomes an investment – and we do not stop at the PowerPoint presentation.

If you are facing a similar decision or want to rethink a project as an integrated system, let us talk. Not about a specific product first, but about the target state, economics, accountability and implementation.

References

1. 1.NFG Future Summit 2026 – official review
2. 2.NFG Future Summit 2026 – official programme featuring Gerd Priebe’s keynote
3. 3.Werner Sobek: non nobis – About Building in the Future

The model assumption of 18 kWh/(m²·a) mentioned in the article comes from a separate internal All-Electric study. That study is not part of this article. The article therefore contains no isolated IRR or ROI results and makes no general return claims. Frank Hummel attended the NFG Future Summit as an advisory board member of Vitramo; no speaker role is claimed.