Agreed. There are multiple points of loss in both systems.
Just like a gasoline powered vehicle loses about 80% of its fuel's energy as heat...
Most of the losses are in the heat engine, but not 80%.
the coal burning process is only so efficient.
Yes, but the gasified coal is still going to go through heat engines and still be limited by the Carnot Cycle.
The coal doesn't burn clean, or scrubbers wouldn't be necessary,
The scrubbers are not there because of the burning process being "unclean". The scrubbers are added because of the impurities in the coal besides pure carbon and hydrogen. Those impurities still exist in a gassified process and they are "cleaned" with their own process.
the gasification process is much hotter, much more like a catalytic converter temperature, and those same scrubbers wouldn't likely be in the mix.
The difference is the "scrubbing" is done before the final combustion instead of after wards. This still consumes energy and adds to the system inefficiency.
I really doubt those units are free, use no energy, require no maintenance and are not detrimental to overall efficiency.
No, in both systems, the units to clean up consume energy, cost money to build and maintain. The both contribute to the losses of each system.
Of course if the coal was near to a given city or there were an established rail connection for supplying coal, the pipeline and transmission issue would also not apply.
Every major city has rail. No major city wants a power plant, gas or coal, contributing to their overall pollution. Nearly every major city has some compromise already of nearby or adjecent power plants to balance cost.
I think power should be produced near where it is consumed
You think that because you don't understand the losses in moving fuel versus moving electrons.
I hate the uber-grid.
You are only suggesting replacing a electrical grid with a less efficient and more polluting pipeline grid.