Nuclear plants are Satan, and for some reason so is hydro, but their "fuel" efficiency is not a factor.
The gasification concept is practically pollution-free other than the dust and exhaust from ground equipment. Plus pipelines generate no electromagnetic induction issues.
Gas and Liquid pipelines have losses due to friction. They require some other form energy to overcome those losses. You either burn the fuel in the pipeline, or consume some other source of energy to drive pumps or compressors.
We also have tons of NG, pipelines already crisscross the US. NG is almost free, and could be used to power the booster pumps...I'm not sure if the two are miscible, but they might be, allowing NG to flow from its source and coal gas to be added where it is produced.
Being sold as a cleaner/safer technology, think of the jobs it would create.
Pull out all the stops!
I don't know where you came up with that concept, but it is far from true. The same impurities in the coal still exist when you gasify the coal. They same sulfurs and the like still have to be recovered.
Coal Gasification is also VERY energy intensive. You have huge losses of energy, orders of magnitude greater than the transmission line losses you were trying to save.
Plus pipelines generate no electromagnetic induction issues.
No, they produce exhaust along the pipeline at every compressor station. They have EPA monitoring and special NOX limitations. They are far from pollution free. And electromagnetic radiation from transmission lines are only a problem for people wearing tinfoil hats.
We also have tons of NG
Yes, over a 1/3 of it is used to generate electric power in this country.
NG is almost free
Dream on. Although it is far cheaper than petroleum, it is far more expensive than the coal you are trying to replace.
Being sold as a cleaner/safer technology, think of the jobs it would create.
Only to the ignorant. First you waste energy and release the same pollutants in the coal gasification plant.
Then you added more engines at the compressor station spreading them along the pipeline as they approach the population center.
Now you have the power plant burning gas, at the population center (EPA attainment area with greater requirements for pollution controls). Also, since the most efficient thermal power plants (combined cycle gas turbine, using waste heat recover) are around 60% efficient, you have to move far more energy in the pipeline than you would have in the electric transmission line.
I've tried several different ways to figure out what you meant by this and cannot figure it out.
How do you imagine stack scrubbers are related to transmission losses? It doesn't matter if the power plant is immediately adjacent to the electrical load or a thousand miles away.
The requirement for pollution controls doesn't change, until you get very close to major cities, then it becomes more stringent, meaning expensive and causes even more losses.