When reading about energy, I'll better visualize what's going on by adding the word "transfer" to it.

 

For example, I'd reinterpret "plants need energy from the sun to live" as "plants need energy transfer from the sun to live"

 

"It generates energy in the form of heat" becomes "It generates energy transfer in the form of heat"

 

Is what I'm doing accurate?

 

Seems to me that "energy" and "energy transfer" are being used interchangeably in many cases. However, the type of energy situation needed to get things done, I believe, is only energy transfer -- as it'd do nothing otherwise.

Heat is energy transfer. But it can be a property, as in kinetic energy. An object in motion has 1/2 mv^2 of kinetic energy. That is not being transferred anywhere.

An object in motion has 1/2 mv^2 of kinetic energy. That is not being transferred anywhere.

 

Unless it is going against a potential like, say, a rocket.

An object in motion has 1/2 mv^2 of kinetic energy. That is not being transferred anywhere.

That's my point. Energy's just energy when it's just there being energy. But when it's being used to do work (i.e. a specific use), it's energy transfer.

Unless it is going against a potential like, say, a rocket.

 

In that case, work is being done on it. Work is also energy transfer.

Well, don't you want to also keep track of how much energy an object has to transfer? Eg a dead battery has less energy than a good battery, even if you don't notice until you try to transfer energy from it.

Any energy is a capability to do some work, so the energy exchange is essentially involved in this definition. Also, there are many energy forms and the energy conservation law means the equal energy transfer from one form to another.