[hvb2]

It's not monopoly rates, it's actual utility rates. The only problem here is if the utility is allowed to make a profit. Gas pipes, electric lines and internet connections are like roads in today's society. Can't really live without them.

So assuming the pipe maintenance is done at cost, with no money not being spent on the network. What would your better net positive solution even look like?

[ZeroGravitas]

People can live without gas pipes. One of the big tasks at the moment is planning to stop people building new gas pipes that won't be used enough to justify the price and how to phase out the existing gas pipes so the pricing doesn't enter a "death spiral" as people start leaving the network, leaving the government to bail it out.

[TheSpiceIsLife]

I’m all for burning less gas, it’s too important a resource to simply burn for heat.

But we need to build the nuclear reactors first.

In the mean time, no: people can’t just freeze in the dark.

[realityking]

Heat pump exists. I’d rather burn gas in the (mostly existing) gas plants than put more gas pipes into the ground.

[TheSpiceIsLife]

Heat pumps don’t solve switching away from gas.

[ben_w]

If you don't put in heat pumps, nuclear reactors are one of the more expensive ways to heat a home.

If you do put in heat pumps, nuclear reactors are still one of the more expensive ways to heat a home, but you need a third as many of them as compared to the no-heat-pumps case, if you insist on heating only with nuclear power.

Nuclear power is really only important if you also want spicy atoms, because it's by far the cheapest source of spicy atoms. Annoyingly, this is now a thing a lot of countries have a solid reason to want.

[adrianN]

They solve a large part: heating. They don’t solve gas as an industrial feedstock, but you need a lot fewer pipes for that use case.