The industrial revolution was sparkled not by sudden availability of raw resources (they were always there, including coal), but by advances in physics and philosophy (probably the most important person founding the change was Thomas Aquinas, who defined the separation between secular and religious pursuits, and declared that scientific understanding of the world is actually something good in its own right — but it took nearly 500 years for his ideas to finally take off). The coal, on the other hand, was equally available in 1200 as well as in 1760.
If there will be no more coal (doubtful — at least 600 years of proven reserves exist), humanity will find the replacement. Energy resources are so cheap that we have to actually restrain ourselves to limit our footprint on the planet (otherwise, nobody would care). Oil is dirty cheap and still actually flows right from the earth in some lucky places. Uranium is so cheap we are happy with ~1% utilisation rate in "classical" nuclear reactors (breeder reactors would allow full utilisation, but they cost more — so why bother if uranium is so darn cheap? With breeders, we have enough uranium for MILLIONS of years with our current energy consumption rates).
It is knowledge that must be preserved, but utter destruction of human knowledge is no longer a "boring" apocalypse scenario. It is quite interesting how this can possibly happen, and what can be done to prevent it.