We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
Is the Energy Systems Language useful in systems ecology? It is developed by Howard T. Odum, "the father of system ecology", to make analogies between ecological systems and electronic circuits. But how far this analogy remains correct? What important results have been found from it? Is it widely used by ecologists in other subfields? If yes, then why isn't it applied to other fields?
Related: What are the branches of system ecology?
Energy systems language is definitely still used in systems ecology, ecosystems ecology, and ecological engineering. It can be used in other aspects of ecology depending on the approach of the ecologist, some ecologists appreciate it more than others. For a broad snapshot of how science is currently building upon Odum's 1983 Intro to Systems Ecology, check out a Google Scholar search for the latest papers citing that text by Odum.
In my experience with it, energy systems language and energy flow diagrams introduced by Odum are used as helpful conceptual tools: understanding and organizing complex systems qualitatively and then potentially quantitatively; putting useful constraints and guidelines on brainstorming the effects of adjustments to complex systems; etc. This can be done in a teaching context, helping students understand systems and bridging the fields of engineering and ecology. It can also be done in a high-level professional context, sorting out the intricacies and potential solutions of very complex environmental problems.
I find that energy systems language is used most wherever the study of complexity and ecology intersect. This is especially true in the study of ecological complex adaptive systems and in studying agro-ecology. Even in those cases it depends on the ecologist in question: those with more of an engineering background tend to appreciate Odum's framework, whereas those without an engineering background may rely on other frameworks.
- Contributed by Matthew R. Fisher
- Faculty (Biology) at Oregon Coast Community College
- Sourced from OpenOregon
Virtually every task performed by living organisms requires energy. Nutrients and other molecules are imported into the cell to meet these energy demands. For example, energy is required for the synthesis and breakdown of molecules, as well as the transport of molecules into and out of cells. In addition, processes such as ingesting and breaking down food, exporting wastes and toxins, and movement of the cell all require energy.
Scientists use the term bioenergetics to describe the concept of energy flow through living systems, such as cells. Cellular processes such as the building and breaking down of complex molecules occur through step-wise chemical reactions. Some of these chemical reactions are spontaneous and release energy, whereas others require energy to proceed. Together, all of the chemical reactions that take place inside cells, including those that consume or generate energy, are referred to as the cell&rsquos metabolism.
From where, and in what form, does this energy come? How do living cells obtain energy, and how do they use it? This section will discuss different forms of energy and the physical laws that govern energy transfer.
Figure (PageIndex<1>). Ultimately, most life forms get their energy from the sun. Plants use photosynthesis to capture sunlight, and herbivores eat the plants to obtain energy. Carnivores eat the herbivores, and eventual decomposition of plant and animal material contributes to the nutrient pool.
A typical food chain looks like this:
A food chain the transference of energy between organisms through consumption, in this case, the rabbit is eating grass and the fox is eating the rabbit.
The initial energy source is found in the plant. The plant uses initial energy from the sun to convert into chemical energy via photosynthesis. The herbivores eat the plants, ingesting some of the energy from the plant of the energy. The herbivore then becomes prey their energy is transferred to the predator.
When consumed some of the energy is transferred but some of the energy is lost at each link in the chair (or trophic level). In the above example, the grass loses some energy by respiration, the rabbit loses energy by heat and waste. By the time the energy is transferred to the fox, there is only a fraction of the total energy transferred.
Flow of Energy
To survive, ecosystems need a constant influx of energy. Energy enters ecosystems in the form of sunlight or chemical compounds. Some organisms use this energy to make food. Other organisms get energy by eating the food.
Producers are organisms that produce food for themselves and other organisms. They use energy and simple inorganic molecules to make organic compounds. The stability of producers is vital to ecosystems because all organisms need organic molecules. Producers are also called autotrophs. There are two basic types of autotrophs: photoautotrophs and chemoautotrophs.
- Photoautotrophs use energy from sunlight to make food by photosynthesis. They include plants, algae, and certain bacteria (see Figurebelow).
- Chemoautotrophs use energy from chemical compounds to make food by chemosynthesis. They include some bacteria and also archaea. Archaea are microorganisms that resemble bacteria.
Different types of photoautotrophs are important in different ecosystems.
Consumers are organisms that depend on other organisms for food. They take in organic molecules by essentially &ldquoeating&rdquo other living things. They include all animals and fungi. (Fungi don't really &ldquoeat&rdquo they absorb nutrients from other organisms.) They also include many bacteria and even a few plants, such as the pitcher plant shown in Figure below. Consumers are also called heterotrophs. Heterotrophs are classified by what they eat:
- Herbivores consume producers such as plants or algae. They are a necessary link between producers and other consumers. Examples include deer, rabbits, and mice.
- Carnivores consume animals. Examples include lions, polar bears, hawks, frogs, salmon, and spiders. Carnivores that are unable to digest plants and must eat only animals are called obligate carnivores. Other carnivores can digest plants but do not commonly eat them.
- Omnivores consume both plants and animals. They include humans, pigs, brown bears, gulls, crows, and some species of fish.
Pitcher Plant. Virtually all plants are producers. This pitcher plant is an exception. It consumes insects. It traps them in a sticky substance in its &ldquopitcher.&rdquo Then it secretes enzymes that break down the insects and release nutrients. Which type of consumer is a pitcher plant?
When organisms die, they leave behind energy and matter in their remains. Decomposersbreak down the remains and other wastes and release simple inorganic molecules back to the environment. Producers can then use the molecules to make new organic compounds. The stability of decomposers is essential to every ecosystem. Decomposers are classified by the type of organic matter they break down:
- Scavengers consume the soft tissues of dead animals. Examples of scavengers include vultures, raccoons, and blowflies.
- Detritivores consume detritus&mdashthe dead leaves, animal feces, and other organic debris that collects on the soil or at the bottom of a body of water. On land, detritivores include earthworms, millipedes, and dung beetles (see Figurebelow). In water, detritivores include &ldquobottom feeders&rdquo such as sea cucumbers and catfish.
- Saprotrophs are the final step in decomposition. They feed on any remaining organic matter that is left after other decomposers do their work. Saprotrophs include fungi and single-celled protozoa. Fungi are the only organisms that can decompose wood.
Dung Beetle. This dung beetle is rolling a ball of feces to its nest to feed its young.
KQED: Banana Slugs: The Ultimate Recyclers
One of the most beloved and iconic native species within the old growth redwood forests of California is the Pacific Banana Slug. These slimy friends of the forest are the ultimate recyclers. Feeding on fallen leaves, mushrooms or even dead animals, they play a pivotal role in replenishing the soil. QUEST goes to Henry Cowell Redwoods State Park near Santa Cruz, California on a hunt to find Ariolimax dolichophallus, a bright yellow slug with a very big personality.
Ecological Efficiency: The Transfer of Energy between Trophic Levels
As illustrated in , large amounts of energy are lost from the ecosystem from one trophic level to the next level as energy flows from the primary producers through the various trophic levels of consumers and decomposers. The main reason for this loss is the second law of thermodynamics, which states that whenever energy is converted from one form to another, there is a tendency toward disorder (entropy) in the system. In biologic systems, this means a great deal of energy is lost as metabolic heat when the organisms from one trophic level consume the next level. In the Silver Springs ecosystem example (), we see that the primary consumers produced 1103 kcal/m 2 /yr from the 7618 kcal/m 2 /yr of energy available to them from the primary producers. The measurement of energy transfer efficiency between two successive trophic levels is termed the trophic level transfer efficiency (TLTE) and is defined by the formula:
TLTE = production at present trophic level production at previous trophic level × 100
In Silver Springs, the TLTE between the first two trophic levels was approximately 14.8 percent. The low efficiency of energy transfer between trophic levels is usually the major factor that limits the length of food chains observed in a food web. The fact is, after four to six energy transfers, there is not enough energy left to support another trophic level. In the Lake Ontario example shown in , only three energy transfers occurred between the primary producer, (green algae), and the apex consumer (Chinook salmon).
Ecologists have many different methods of measuring energy transfers within ecosystems. Some transfers are easier or more difficult to measure depending on the complexity of the ecosystem and how much access scientists have to observe the ecosystem. In other words, some ecosystems are more difficult to study than others, and sometimes the quantification of energy transfers has to be estimated.
Another main parameter that is important in characterizing energy flow within an ecosystem is the net production efficiency. Net production efficiency (NPE) allows ecologists to quantify how efficiently organisms of a particular trophic level incorporate the energy they receive into biomass it is calculated using the following formula:
NPE = net consumer productivity assimilation × 100
Net consumer productivity is the energy content available to the organisms of the next trophic level. Assimilation is the biomass (energy content generated per unit area) of the present trophic level after accounting for the energy lost due to incomplete ingestion of food, energy used for respiration, and energy lost as waste. Incomplete ingestion refers to the fact that some consumers eat only a part of their food. For example, when a lion kills an antelope, it will eat everything except the hide and bones. The lion is missing the energy-rich bone marrow inside the bone, so the lion does not make use of all the calories its prey could provide.
Thus, NPE measures how efficiently each trophic level uses and incorporates the energy from its food into biomass to fuel the next trophic level. In general, cold-blooded animals (ectotherms), such as invertebrates, fish, amphibians, and reptiles, use less of the energy they obtain for respiration and heat than warm-blooded animals (endotherms), such as birds and mammals. The extra heat generated in endotherms, although an advantage in terms of the activity of these organisms in colder environments, is a major disadvantage in terms of NPE. Therefore, many endotherms have to eat more often than ectotherms to get the energy they need for survival. In general, NPE for ectotherms is an order of magnitude (10x) higher than for endotherms. For example, the NPE for a caterpillar eating leaves has been measured at 18 percent, whereas the NPE for a squirrel eating acorns may be as low as 1.6 percent.
The inefficiency of energy use by warm-blooded animals has broad implications for the world's food supply. It is widely accepted that the meat industry uses large amounts of crops to feed livestock, and because the NPE is low, much of the energy from animal feed is lost. For example, it costs about 1¢ to produce 1000 dietary calories (kcal) of corn or soybeans, but approximately
Art ConnectionEcological pyramids depict the (a) biomass, (b) number of organisms, and (c) energy in each trophic level.
Pyramids depicting the number of organisms or biomass may be inverted, upright, or even diamond-shaped. Energy pyramids, however, are always upright. Why?.19 to produce a similar number of calories growing cattle for beef consumption. The same energy content of milk from cattle is also costly, at approximately
Organisms in an ecosystem acquire energy in a variety of ways, which is transferred between trophic levels as the energy flows from the bottom to the top of the food web, with energy being lost at each transfer. The efficiency of these transfers is important for understanding the different behaviors and eating habits of warm-blooded versus cold-blooded animals. Modeling of ecosystem energy is best done with ecological pyramids of energy, although other ecological pyramids provide other vital information about ecosystem structure..16 per 1000 kcal. Much of this difference is due to the low NPE of cattle. Thus, there has been a growing movement worldwide to promote the consumption of non-meat and non-dairy foods so that less energy is wasted feeding animals for the meat industry.
Ecology: Organisms and Their Environments - Ecosystem Energy Flow
Nearly all of the energy that drives ecosystems ultimately comes from the sun. Solar energy, which is an abiotic factor, by the way, enters the ecosystem through the process of photosynthesis. You can learn more than you want to know about this process in the unit on photosynthesis. Or, you could just chat with your local botanist. Everyone has one, right? The organisms in an ecosystem that capture the sun’s electromagnetic energy and convert it into chemical energy are called producers. Not to be confused with these Producers.
The name is appropriate because producers make the carbon-based molecules, usually carbohydrates, that the rest of the organisms in the ecosystem, including you, consume. Producers include all of the green plants and some bacteria and algae. Every living thing on Earth literally owes its life to the producers. The next time you see a plant, it wouldn’t be a bad idea for you to thank it for its services. which, as you will learn in other units, go way beyond just supplying you with food.
After a producer has captured the sun’s energy and used it to grow yummy plant parts, other organisms come along and greedily gobble it up. These primary consumers, as they are called, exclusively feed on producers. If these consumers are human, we call them vegetarians. Otherwise, they are known as herbivores.
Primary consumers only obtain a fraction of the total solar energy—about 10%—captured by the producers they eat. The other 90% is used by the producer for growth, reproduction, and survival, or it is lost as heat. You can probably see where this is going. Primary consumers are eaten by secondary consumers. An example would be birds that eat bugs that eat leaves. Secondary consumers are eaten by tertiary consumers. Cats that eat birds that eat bugs that eat leaves, for instance.
At each level, called a trophic level, about 90% of the energy is lost. What a shame. So, if a plant captures 1000 calories of solar energy, a bug that eats the plant will only obtain 100 calories of energy. A chicken that eats the bug will only obtain 10 calories, and a human that eats the chicken will only obtain 1 calorie of the original 1000 calories of solar energy captured by the plant. When you think about this way, it would take 100 1000-calorie plants—those would be enormo plants, by the way—to produce a single 100-calorie piece of free-range chicken. You are now recalling all of the plants you have ever forgotten to water in your life and feeling really, really terrible about it, aren't you?
The relationships among producers, primary consumers, secondary consumers, and tertiary consumers is usually drawn as a pyramid, known as an energy pyramid, with producers at the bottom and tertiary consumers at the top. You can see from the example above why producers are at the bottom of this pyramid. It takes a lot of producers for higher-trophic-level consumers, like humans, to obtain the energy they need to grow and reproduce.
This is the answer to the great mystery as to why there are so many plants on Earth. We will even spell it out for you because it is so important to understand: there are so many plants on Earth because energy flow through ecosystems is inefficient. Only 10% of the energy in one trophic level is ever passed to the next. So, there you have it. We hope you feel fulfilled.
In addition to energy pyramid diagrams, ecosystem ecologists sometimes depict the relationship between trophic groups in a linear way, with arrows pointing from one organism to another. If there is only one producer, one primary consumer, one secondary consumer, and one tertiary consumer, this linear diagram is called a food chain. Food chains help ecologists and students visualize the interactions between organisms in an ecosystem. As always seems to be the case, it isn’t ever that simple. In fact, trophic interactions among organisms in an ecosystem are often really complex. It’s rare that an ecosystem only has one species at each trophic level. Usually, there are multiple producers that are eaten by multiple primary consumers. Some consumers eat different kinds of producers. Likewise, secondary consumers sometimes eat producers as well as primary consumers. These are known as omnivores.
These complex relationships are often depicted—if they can be figured out, that is—in a diagram called a food web. These diagrams can become messy indeed, depending on the size of the ecosystem and the number of interactions among trophic groups. If you like puzzles and biology, though, ecosystem ecology is the field for you.
Ecologists use food webs to better understand the intricate workings of the ecosystems they study. Understanding exactly who is eating whom can provide valuable information for conservation biologists as well. Such knowledge can aid in restoration efforts, species recovery projects, and preservation efforts, just to name a few instances. In any case, uncovering food webs goes a long way to understanding the first half of an ecosystem, the community.
Most of our energy comes from domesticated animals and plants, but we are not the only organisms on the planet that farm. Insects, such as the fungal ants, feeding leaf clippings to a special symbiotic fungus and protect it from invasive pathogens. The ants tendto their fungus just as humans tend to their gardens. You can watch an ant colony tend to their fungus in real time here.
Ecology is the study of how living things interact with each other and with their environment. It is a major branch of biology, but has areas of overlap with geography, geology, climatology, and other sciences. The study of ecology begins with two fundamental concepts in ecology: the ecosystem and their organisms.
Organisms are individual living things. Despite their tremendous diversity, all organisms have the same basic needs: energy and matter. These must be obtained from the environment. Therefore, organisms are not closed systems. They depend on and are influenced by their environment. The environment includes two types of factors: abiotic and biotic.
- Abiotic factors are the nonliving aspects of the environment. They include factors such as sunlight, soil, temperature, and water.
- Biotic factors are the living aspects of the environment. They consist of other organisms, including members of the same and different species.
An ecosystem is a unit of nature and the focus of study in ecology. It consists of all the biotic and abiotic factors in an area and their interactions. Ecosystems can vary in size. A lake could be considered an ecosystem. So could a dead log on a forest floor. Both the lake and log contain a variety of species that interact with each other and with abiotic factors. Another example of an ecosystem is pictured in Figure below.
A desert ecosystem. What are some of the biotic and abiotic factors in this desert ecosystem?
When it comes to energy, ecosystems are not closed. They need constant inputs of energy. Most ecosystems get energy from sunlight. A small minority get energy from chemical compounds. Unlike energy, matter is not constantly added to ecosystems. Instead, it is recycled. Water and elements such as carbon and nitrogen are used over and over again.
One of the most important concepts associated with the ecosystem is the niche. A niche refers to the role of a species in its ecosystem. It includes all the ways that the species interacts with the biotic and abiotic factors of the environment. Two important aspects of a species&rsquo niche are the food it eats and how the food is obtained. Look at Figure below. It shows pictures of birds that occupy different niches. Each species eats a different type of food and obtains the food in a different way.
Bird Niches. Each of these species of birds has a beak that suits it for its niche. For example, the long slender beak of the nectarivore allows it to sip liquid nectar from flowers. The short sturdy beak of the granivore allows it to crush hard, tough grains.
Another aspect of a species&rsquo niche is its habitat. The habitat is the physical environment in which a species lives and to which it is adapted. A habitat&rsquos features are determined mainly by abiotic factors such as temperature and rainfall. These factors also influence the traits of the organisms that live there.
Competitive Exclusion Principle
A given habitat may contain many different species, but each species must have a different niche. Two different species cannot occupy the same niche in the same place for very long. This is known as the competitive exclusion principle. If two species were to occupy the same niche, what do you think would happen? They would compete with one another for the same food and other resources in the environment. Eventually, one species would be likely to outcompete and replace the other.
Example Ecosystem: Temperate Forest
Temperate forest ecosystems are a great example for displaying how energy flow works.
It all starts with the solar energy that enters the ecosystem. This sunlight plus carbon dioxide will be used by a number of primary producers in a forest environment, including:
- Trees (such as maple, oak, ash and pine).
- Algae in ponds/streams.
Next come the primary consumers. In the temperate forest, this would include herbivores like deer, various herbivorous insects, squirrels, chipmunks, rabbits and more. These organisms eat the primary producers and incorporate their energy into their own bodies. Some energy is lost as heat and waste.
Secondary and tertiary consumers then eat those other organisms. In a temperate forest, this includes animals like raccoons, predatory insects, foxes, coyotes, wolves, bears and birds of prey.
When any of these organisms die, decomposers break down the dead organisms' bodies, and the energy flows to the decomposers. In a temperate forest, this would include worms, fungi and various types of bacteria.
The pyramidal "flow of energy" concept can be demonstrated with this example, too. The most available energy and biomass is at the lowest level of the food/energy pyramid: the producers in the form of flowering plants, grasses, bushes and more. The level with the least energy/biomass is at the top of the pyramid/food chain in the form of high-level consumers like bears and wolves.
Researchers (in both academia and industry) dealing with arid land environments and arid ecosystems around the world, upper undergrad and postgrad students, environmental planners and managers, climate change scientists
1. Conceptual Framework, Paradigms, and Models
2. Landforms, Geomorphology, and Vegetation
3. Characterization of Desert Climates
4. Wind and Water Processes
5. Patch—Mosiac Dynamics
7. Primary Production
8. Consumers and Their Effects
9. Decomposition and Nutrient Cycling
10. Nonnative, Exotic, or Alien Species
11. Anthropogenic Climate Change in Deserts
13. Rehabilitation of Degraded Landscapes
14. Monitoring and Assessment
15. The Human Footprint (Roads Urbanization Energy Developments)
The technological environment of a circular economy
10.1.2 The economics of industrial ecology
In industrial ecology the role of environmental policies, at least of command-and-control policies, is limited, the role of the market system in general is not particularly emphasised. This corresponds to the critical view some behavioural economists have regarding environmental issues to be considered in a market system (see Chapter 8 ). Companies, however, are assigned clear tasks in a circular economy: they are, among others, responsible for DfEs, and for a more effective approach to circular economy strategies. On the other hand, companies in general seem not yet to have grasped the active role of policy-makers expected of them, the role of “technology-guidance”.
This observation points to the fact that stakeholders, consumers and producers, have their individual motivations to participate more or less actively in circular economy strategies. In the worst case, the goals of the strategies cannot be achieved, the regulations do not meet the interests of the stakeholders, other economic mechanisms, such as the Tragedy of the Commons or the Prisoners' Dilemma, for example, influence the behaviour (see Section 7.1 ).
In addition, public authorities can only partially control this behaviour due to information asymmetries and lack of information. Here, those researchers in industrial ecology, who view command-and-control regulation as inefficient, perhaps even counterproductive. Lifset and Graedel (2002) are right, at least to some extent: writing the requirement of an appropriate, environmentally friendly product design into environmental policies is, in general, not very helpful and not really goal-oriented (p. 8). Producers possess the required knowledge and expertise, and will only make adequate use of it, if it is in their business interests, which is, of course, legitimate in a free market economy. Nevertheless, such regulations seem to slow down the process of developing innovative and environmentally friendly designs, and the question arises, how to affect the behaviour of producers, how to motivate them for a DfE? Thus, how to interest companies for the role expected of them – not only by proponents of industrial ecology?
In fact, a variety of case studies, published by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation , supports the impression of viable, new business models, supporting and accelerating the transition to a circular economy. But these are still cases, which need not include all interesting DfEs. They might help to establish a different mindset in the near or not so near future, but are certainly not yet representative for larger parts of the economy. Establishing this different mindset required for a circular economy likely takes some time.
These profitable business cases refer probably to commodities and services, which are environmentally friendly, and/or which can be provided in a more sustainable, but also profitable way, for which there is, therefore, sufficient demand. Of course, this demand can also be “generated” through subsidies, driving competitive commodities, services or production processes out of the regular markets. For an example, consider the transition to an electric mobility system in the City of Shenzhen in China, which is presented by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation as one of the new business models enabling innovation with financial support. It remains, however, unclear, to what extent this business model would be financially and/or societally viable in the United States (U.S.) or in the European Union (EU).
There is also the possibility that some companies act out of pure altruism and turn to a DfE regarding their products or services. This would then correspond to findings from behavioural environmental economics and could play a role in creating new habits, presenting an intrinsic motivation for certain environmental issues. Beyond that, also a strategic behaviour might play a role with these “voluntary contributions”: rushing ahead and adopting a DfE now could help a company to take advantage of a societal trend, create some leeway and gain some time against competitors, thus profiting from a “societal” first-mover advantage (see also Section 16.4 ).
The list of examples provided by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation includes various cases, which seem to fit into one or the other of these categories, but a more detailed investigation is needed to understand these business models. For sure, there are quite a few possibilities to deviate from mainstream economic behaviour, making it, however, still more difficult to predict the concrete development. Also the possibility of a “cheap excuse”, of “greenwashing” should not be completely ruled out: consumers and producers might use one or a few environmentally friendly actions “to ease their moral conscience” ( Engel & Szech, 2017 ).
No doubt, all these possibilities, all these behavioural aspects are important and have their place under certain framework conditions. Nevertheless, the transition to electric mobility in the City of Shenzhen and other examples are and remain “cases”, initiated and enforced by public authorities, certainly with support from groups of engineers, architects and perhaps other knowledgeable people, or they result from strategic or some other behaviour. Therefore, the question remains, whether the characteristics of a market system, namely the integration of all stakeholders with their individual knowledge, could not be of an advantage with respect to the promotion and development of a circular economy. Choudhary (2012) points exactly to the necessity of such an integration, when he refers to the appropriate interpretation of “industrial” in industrial ecology. But, to integrate all these stakeholders, to employ them for these purposes, remains one of the challenges of a transition to a circular economy. Economics has to play an important role in this context, and economists have to contribute a lot – beyond cases and beyond “new” business models. Economic instruments are needed to design appropriate policies, which guide and motivate the stakeholders to make adequate use of their knowledge.
Therefore, industrial ecology is, for sure, an important and interesting school of thought, which has substantially influenced the concept of a circular economy and shaped its development. The idea that industrial activities should not be considered in isolation from the natural world, that these activities should be further developed to produce in a more environmentally friendly way, to provide more environmentally friendly commodities, corresponds perfectly to the academic concept of the circular economy introduced in Pearce and Turner (1989) . In view of the various aspects raised above, a too strict focus on technology-guidance remains, however, questionable.
Given this strong technological background of the circular economy, it is necessary to investigate various features of local and global markets for environmental technologies. After all, the supply of these technologies, which are of relevance for a circular economy, is dependent on framework conditions, which are determined by actions and regulations of the governments.
Patient discussion about energy
Q. Is energy drinks really boost my energy? Now-a-days the sale of the energy drinks have grown high. Is energy drinks really boost my energy?
A. People have a mind set that energy drinks really boost them to do work or to relax more. Actually energy drinks may give you a temporary energy boost. The "boost" typically comes from the large amount of sugar and caffeine these drinks contain. Although the various sugars used to sweeten energy drinks can briefly increase energy, consuming large quantities of sugar is likely to cause weight gain. Caffeine is a stimulant, which also can temporarily perk you up. But too much caffeine can cause adverse side effects, such as nervousness, irritability, increased heart rate and blood pressure, and insomnia.
Energy drinks are not necessarily bad for your health. But you shouldn't see them as some "natural" energy boost — the boost they give is from caffeine. Some of the claims made by manufacturers of energy drinks — such as "improves performance and increases concentration" — can be misleading.
Consider a better way to boost your energy: Get adequate sleep,
Q. HOW DO ENERGYS EFFECT THE BODY? POSITIVE, NEGITIVE, CHI, ELOPTIC, LIFE FORCE ENERGY.
A. Not really my area, but you can try and ask in the alternative medicine community (http://www.imedix.com/Alternative_Medicine).
You can read about these things here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneers_in_radionics, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%27i
Q. I suffer of lack in energy lately, any advice? I’m 35, usually a strong guy but for the past 3 weeks I’ve been sleeping all day, doing nothing while awake, having no energy to do anything. Any one know a reason or what should I do?
A. Have you tried changing your diet? You may lack of vitamins or other essential materials that can cause drowsiness. Try eating vegetables and fruits. Force yourself to do a daily walk, 25 minutes, that’s all. and could be you got an infection that will take some time…