ANALYSIS
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website
The review's main focus is on electricity generation
And in a process dominated by headlines about a new nationwide network of nuclear reactors, there is much to enthuse the champions of the small and the green.
Many important details remain to be resolved; but the overt commitment to renewables and the many pages pledging improvements in energy efficiency hold out the prospect of genuine moves towards sustainability.
"The direction of travel is a welcome one," said Dave Sowden of the Micropower Council.
"The government has seen the light on renewables," added Philip Wolfe of the Renewable Energy Association (REA).
"The energy review supports what we and many others have been consistently saying - that renewables, energy efficiency and decentralised systems are the strongest prospects for secure and sustainable energy supplies."
Barriers down
Planning laws have been a particular bugbear of the microgeneration industry; and it is easy to see why.
Renewable energy: Small is beautiful
At-a-glance
The house is directly under the flight path into Heathrow Airport.
The energy review promises to sweep such barriers away. The details are not honed down but the intention is "...to ensure that, as far as possible, homeowners will be able to install solar panels, photovoltaic cells, domestic wind turbines, etc. without having to apply for planning permission".
"We agree with that," said Mr Sowden.
"It wouldn't be appropriate for people to install a 15 ft (5m) wind turbine on their roof without planning permission, but within sensible limits you should be able to install micropower equipment without it," he told the BBC News website.
"You don't need permission for a satellite dish, and small wind turbines are no more intrusive."
Boost for microgeneration
Other measures designed to encourage microgeneration include:
changing codes for new buildings
looking to include microgeneration in the financial incentives of the Energy Efficiency Commitment
expecting planning authorities to require on-site renewable generation in new developments
making it easier for householders and communities to sell electricity
It's very laudable to talk about removing the least efficient products from the market, but my question is when?
Tim Curtis, Energy Saving Trust
In an echo of its statements on nuclear reactors, the review concludes that public planning enquiries for wind farms are taking too long, and do not always give sufficient priority to the nation's interest.
Accordingly the government has published a Statement of Need, stating that "...the benefits to society and the wider economy as a whole are significant, and this must be reflected in the weight given to these considerations by decision-makers...".
While this may ease the planning process for wind farms and other forms of renewable energy, changes to the Renewables Obligation (RO) may be more important as a way of stimulating the uptake of new technologies.
The review pledges to speed planning procedures for wind farms
"Exactly how the government will do it remains to be seen," said Rob Gross, head of policy and technology at the UK Energy Research Centre, "but essentially you would have a share of the obligation reserved for certain kinds of technology.
"Or you could increase the reward given for investing in certain kinds of technology.
"The most important of these now is offshore wind; onshore wind companies, as long as they can find the site and can build, are doing very nicely, but offshore wind is the technology we're looking to bring in and it's stuck."
Exploring the tides
Before the review's publication there had been speculation that the Severn Barrage concept, a 10-mile long tidal power installation spanning the Severn Estuary which could generate 5% of Britain's electricity, would be given government backing.
But the review came up short, promising instead that the government would join other interested parties in "exploring the issues arising on the tidal resource in the UK".
While this will please conservation groups alarmed at a project which they believe carries dire ecological consequences, one of the potential barrage builders was less enthusiastic.
The barrage would stretch 10 miles across the Bristol Channel
"In a sense, though, it says what we would have wanted it to say because we're confident there is nothing else out there which is able to produce the power that the barrage will produce," he told the BBC News website.
"So if there is to be an official comparison of the different tidal technologies, that should suit us."
Reduce and survive
Producing more renewable energy is of course only one possible answer to rising energy demand; using less is the other, infinitely preferable in some peoples' eyes.
The review sets out several measures for increasing Britain's energy efficiency, including:
giving consumers better information on electricity usage and costs
ensuring better compliance with building regulations
incentivising energy suppliers to help householders reduce energy use
removing the least efficient products from the market
But much of the detail on how these pledges are to be met is as yet absent.
"There are some very positive words in there - advice to consumers, building regulations, restrictions on retailers," said Tim Curtis, director of operations at the Energy Saving Trust.
"But what we're looking for are more specifics in some areas.
STANDBY BRITAIN
How electricity is being wasted in UK homes
"It's very laudable to talk about negotiations with manufacturers and the EU to remove the least efficient products from the market, but my question is when?"
Overall, the energy review contains a bit for everyone. Nuclear enthusiasts can foresee a bright new dawning of fission power; wind lovers see moves which can hasten the turbines' march across Britain; would-be home generators are a step closer to achieving electrical independence.
Big questions remain to be address in several areas, not least how the grid system can accommodate both major megawatt generators and a plethora of householders doing it themselves.
As always, projections of carbon savings depend on other projections.
The government's assertion that their measures will bring emissions 13% to 17% below what they otherwise would have been in 2020 is going to be contentious.
They recently admitted that the prior target of a 20% reduction on 1990 levels by 2010 will not be met.
Perhaps the biggest criticism of the review is that it concentrates on electricity generation at the expense of transport, which receives far less extensive treatment.
Richard.Black-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk
The  has given permission for new  to be built in the United Kingdom. This decision follows months of public debate and controversy over the proposal. Many Britons have argued for greater use of renewable energy supplies, but the government has said that even with a big increase in investment, renewable sources will not meet all of the UK's additional energy demands. It is expected that 25 GW of additional generating capacity will be required over the next two decades, partly as compensation for old nuclear stations which will be closed down. This additional capacity must be met while reducing overall greenhouse gas emission as per the .

The government also announced big increases in spending on renewable energy research and for the construction of onshore wind farms. It is claimed that 20% of energy will be produced from renewables by 2020, and if there are new breakthroughs in renewable energy science this figure may be increased further. Philip Wolfe of the Renewable Energy Association (REA) told the BBC "The government has seen the light on renewables. The energy review supports what we and many others have been consistently saying - that renewables, energy efficiency and decentralised systems are the strongest prospects for secure and sustainable energy supplies." 

The new nuclear plants will cost 400-500 million UK pounds (700-900 million US dollars) and will generate 1.5 to 2 GW of power each. These will provide the baseline amount of additional power should there be a lack of success in new areas of renewable energy research. The private sector will initiate, fund, construct and operate the new nuclear plants and will cover the full cost of decommissioning and their full share of long-term waste management costs. The Government proposes to address potential barriers to new nuclear stations, but says it will not provide any taxpayer money for the nuclear industry - tax investment will only be put into renewable energy research. This approach is similar to the successful approach adopted in the USA. It contrasts with early UK nuclear power development, where individual power plants or small groups of plants were planned and built by separate publicly funded research and engineering groups, but there was poor planning of nationwide issues such as waste management. Critics argue that the government has only put the nuclear option on the table as it is privately run and does not require government investment, whereas increasing renewable energy production would cost taxpayer money.

The review also discusses energy self-sufficiency, and points out that the increase in renewable energy to 20% of the total will improve the UK's self sufficiency. No mention is made of opening uranium mines in the  (or reopening  uranium mines) in order to make the UK self-sufficient in uranium, something which   in 1980.

Some critics were disappointed that the review had little discussion of the reduction of emissions from transport, a sector which gives a larger contribution to the total UK emissions than electricity generation. This may relate to the high costs associated with significant reductions in emissions in the transport sector.