The "essence/energies" distinction appears to be nothing more than a distinction between what God is and what He does; but over most levels it is a distinction that doesn't have to be made. The Apostles make this distinction between the Divine Nature/Ousia/Substance and the Divine Energies:
St. Paul says:
"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse," (Romans 1:20)
Let's try for some more idiomatic, modern English, in this case from the NRSV: "Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made."
While one could certainly see some sort of a distinction being made in passing, it's just that: in passing. The point of the sentence is something else entirely.
And how else can St John say that "God is Love" if the Divine Love is not (a)Uncreated and (b)distinct from the Divine Nature?
Well, if I may turn up my modernity to full power, I think it is questionable to assert that love is not
part of the divine nature. One could, after all, take a different tack: that it is the nature of love in the Godhead that is manifested in the grace of God's acts. To take some other predicates: omnipresence adheres to the Godhead rather to His actions, because He does not do everything that is "possible" (leaving aside that he is perfectly constrained/free in His will). But omnipresence adheres to His acts and not to the Godhead, because omnipresence states that He could/would withdraw His presence if/when He willed. But then consider that since He is
omnipresent, He does not so will, and to that degree it adheres to His nature.
The problem I'm having, see, is that the perfect union of the divine will and divine acts tends to imply that attributes of one are attributes of the other. If the divine acts manifest love, then the divine will must also encompass love. The alternative is
(And to skip ahead: it is incorrect, or at least badly phrased, to say that the Divine Nature is "infinite, unbounded, and unlimited." As phrased, this is not significantly different from saying that God has no character. But He does, as scripture teaches at great length; and He makes particular acts (e.g., choosing Abram). Indeed, this is one of the crucial revelations of Judaeo-Christian religion: that God is universal and yet particular. His will can, in some senses, be treated as a self-constraint. The thing is, that He does not act inconsistently with His will is not really a limitation.)
I still don't see the emphasis on "uncreated", either. Again, God does not have created
actions; the phrase doesn't make sense.
Which leads me back to the another point: I still don't see the position which is being argued against. The only two distinguishable positions, once we take the "grace as a substance" heresy out of the picture, seem to be that either (a) love is in the divine nature, or (b) it is not. It seems to me that you are saying that Orthodoxy asserts (b), which leads to the unpalatable conclusion that there is nothing in the divine nature which gives rise to God's loving acts. To me it would seem more natural to say that there is
is something in that nature which gives rise to those acts, and then to also call that something "love". But I don't see any other position which anyone is actually expressing.