"Energy transfer" and "Energy transport" Are the terms "energy transfer" and "energy transport" sometimes or always interchangeable?
My own surmise is that the term "energy transfer" is slightly more general: "energy transport" refers to spatial transport of energy (e.g. via conduction or convection), while "energy transfer" also include a transfer of energy in the same position, e.g. between electrons and phonons in a metal.
 A: Energy transfer and energy transport are two different things.
Energy transport means moving energy from one location to another.
Energy transfer means moving energy out of something (solid, liquid or gas) thereby reducing its energy, into something  else (another solid, liquid or gas) thereby increasing its energy. The two mechanisms of energy transfer are heat and work.
In order for energy transfer to occur, it is sometimes necessary to transport energy from the location from which it is taken from something, to the location at which something else absorbs it.
Take heat transfer by radiation. Energy is transported from the location of the radiation emitting object by electromagnetic waves (or photons if you will) to the location of the radiation absorbing object. But until energy is actually absorbed at the location of the receiver, it is not "transferred". If the transport occurs in a vacuum, no energy is transferred in the vacuum itself.
On the other hand, take heat transfer by conduction. The two objects need to be in contact with one another. Energy transfer (transfer of kinetic energy from the higher temperature object to the lower temperature object) occurs at the same location, namely at the interface of the contacting surfaces. There was no need to "transport" the energy between two different locations.
Another example of energy transport is a moving mass that goes from one location to another with respect to some frame of reference. The mass has kinetic energy due to its motion. When it moves from one location to another its macroscopic kinetic energy is transported with it from one location to another. So is its microscopic (internal) kinetic energy. But none of its kinetic energy has been transferred to something else at the second location until and unless it interacts with that something else, and either does work on that something else, or transfers heat to or from that something else.
The last example shows that energy can be “transported” without necessarily being “transferred”.
Hope this helps.
A: The definitions from Merriam-Webster show the ambiguity:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transport


*

*transport - to transfer or convey from one place to another


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transfer


*

*transfer - to convey from one person, place, or situation to another; to cause to pass from one to another; transform or change


Also, in engineering, transport or transfer a process of moving something (mass or energy as heat) from one place to another. We can find references on either topics that cover the same things and interchange the terminology.
Given the more expansive list of contexts in the definition of transfer compared to transport, your view that transfer is a more general term is not without some support. Considering the last form of the definition of transfer (transform or change) also allows us to recognize that energy transfer (change in form) does not need to include energy transport (convey from one place to another). Thus, one might easily propose to discuss the mechanisms of energy transfer from work to heat in a car engine or from vibrational modes to electronic modes in molecules but one would not propose to discuss the modes of energy transport in those same cases.
