There are many answers to your question, but I will try to keep it in the most simple form. Energia in greek means “activity or operation.” Thus the divine nature is not just a nature, but it has its operation, its activity. So the argument goes what we comprehend of God is his works, by his actions, but not his essence.

I think one of the reasons why it can seem to be over the head of people (and not actually be) is from the fact that most people lack the context in which the discussion is being engaged. There is, to be sure, a cultural-linguistic element involved, but if one begins to grasp the conventions in which Palamas writes in, it becomes more apparent what he means and what he is saying. The difficulty is to figure out the spirit of his words, and not rely upon the letter, since the letter is causing much of the difficulty people have with Palamite thought today.

As a way to engage his context, while a serious study would take much more, for a brief introductory study to his thought, if one has the time and interest, I would recommend: the works of St Maximus in vol. 2 of the Philokalia, the works of St Symeon the New Theologian in vol. 4 of the Philokalia, the works of Pseudo-Dionysius, and then the works of Palamas in vol 4 of the Philokalia. IF one wants a further study, I would include some readings from St Gregory the Theologian, St Gregory of Nyssa and St Basil, and more from Maximus and Symeon. Finally, for an interpreter (who is not perfect, mind you) of Palamas, Meyendorff is always the best start.

My own take on the scholastic/Palamite debates is rather complex. Some scholastics, to be sure, would contradict Palamas, and it is those the Palamites knew about; they were, to be sure, more on the nominalistic side, but because they were “scholastics” they became the means by which the East, for sometime, engaged scholasticism and provided from the Eastern view common reasons as to why scholasticism is in conflict with Palamite thought. This became reified and even accepted in the West, causing the West to accept such statements as well. But, if one went more to Thomas and Bonaventure, I think there is more apparent conflict than there is real conflict. They will have different ways to express the same points, and if one follows the letter, instead of what the letter is trying to say, the difference is there. But if one looks for it more to the fact that the letter of each is pointing to some truth, then the conflict is minimum. There is, to be sure, some conflict, but it is the kind which can be had within orthodoxy, just like Scotists and Thomists can and do disagree.

So, St Gregory Palamas is important, very important even, because he systematizs Eastern spirituality. He does it quite well. But with all systems, be it Thomism or Palamism, the point should be beyond the system and what the system is trying to express, while recognizing the genius and aid of the system if it is not reified.

It seemed bery important ( and to listen to Orthodox one of the main issues) but a lot of it goes over my head