But that's because of it's usefulness as a chemical precursor (i.e. carbon) rather than because it was worth it to burn for straight heating energy in a power p

But that's because of it's usefulness as a chemical precursor (i.e. carbon) rather than because it was worth it to burn for straight heating energy in a power plant. I am pretty much okay with (or at least resigned to) petrochemicals/coal being used for the next 30 years to produce chemicals and other products. Burning it is a waste of a very useful chemical feedstock. The lowest value (and by extension least valuable) thing you can do with a material like coal is burn it. If it's used because of it's properties other than it's fuel content of course it's value is higher and economics will make it more compelling. These are entirely different markets in size and kind.