Coal only needs to be collected up and sent somewhere to be ground and set on fire. Coke requires more processing but has a very specific use.
Yup. Hydrocarbons are far more efficient as transportable energy stores than H2 or batteries. Coke's interesting because of the recent demands to block mining of coking coal in the UK. Eco-facists don't seem to understand than you need coke to produce steel, which you need to produce windmills and solar panels.
There have also been bigger issues wrt coal. So some time ago, eco-facists produced the UK's 'Climate Change Act' demanding a 30% reduction in carbon emissions. The UK's coal generating fleet was pretty ancient. So Kingsnorth was a 4x500MW coal (and gas, oil) generating station. E.On proposed an upgrade to a modern, more efficient design that would have reduced CO2 output by close to 30%, even without trying to make CCS work.
Greenpeace naturally objected, flew in a climate 'expert' from the US to appear at a judicial review, and got the project cancelled. Even though it would have resulted in the required CO2 emission reductions. So the plant shut down, taking 2GW out of supply and costing around 3,000 jobs.
Mainly speed. That's being touted today the same way only the speed increases come at a much higher cost.
Not really. Clipper ships were for some time faster than steam ships. Downside is of course dependency on fair winds and following seas to maintain that speed and get goods to market. Steam ships had the advantage of being able to maintain a steady speed, with less impact from the weather. Plus being able to carry a lot more cargo. Age of Sail pretty much died when the Suez canal opened, reducing the distance travelled and removing sail's speed/cost advantages.
But such is politics. There's been a neat demonstration of what can happen when politicians follow bad advice (or good lobbying). So-
Last April, Rajapaksa’s government made good on that promise, imposing a nationwide ban on the importation and use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides and ordering the country’s 2 million farmers to go organic.
The result was brutal and swift. Against claims that organic methods can produce comparable yields to conventional farming, domestic rice production fell 20 percent in just the first six months. Sri Lanka, long self-sufficient in rice production, has been forced to import $450 million worth of rice even as domestic prices for this staple of the national diet surged by around 50 percent. The ban also devastated the nation’s tea crop, its primary export and source of foreign exchange.
Oops. Who could have predicted that outcome? Except virtually every farmer. But Sri Lanka's had civil unrest, deaths etc because they bought into eco-facists's lies about the virtues of organic. And that's an experiment being repeated on a far larger scale, albeit involuntarily due to current fertiliser shortages thanks to sanctions.