Quantcast
EcoWatch is a community of experts publishing quality, science-based content on environmental issues, causes, and solutions for a healthier planet and life.

Tuesday's announcement that the Three Mile Island Unit One nuclear plant will close unless it gets massive subsidies has vastly strengthened the case for a totally renewable energy future.

That future is rising in Buffalo, and comes in the form of Tesla's massive job-producing solar shingle factory which will create hundreds of jobs and operate for decades to come.

Read More Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
SolarCity Gigafactory in Buffalo, New York. Photo credit: SolarCity

By Harvey Wasserman and Tim Judson

Elon Musk's SolarCity is completing the construction of its "Buffalo Billion" Gigafactory for photovoltaic (PV) cells near the Niagara River in Buffalo, New York. It will soon put 500 New Yorkers to work inside the 1.2 million-square-foot facility with another 700 nearby, ramping up to nearly 3,000 over the next few years.

Read More Show Less
Blue Raven Solar: Reviews, Costs, Services & More (2021)

What should you know about the up-and-coming company Blue Raven Solar?

Reviews
zstockphotos / E+ / Getty Images

Considering a solar energy system from Blue Raven Solar? Before you sign a contract, you may want to know more about the company's services, major pros and cons, and what Blue Raven Solar reviews say about the quality of service you can expect from this installer.

In this article, we'll discuss all that and more to help you figure out if Blue Raven Solar is the right choice for your home.

Blue Raven Solar Fast Facts
Year Started 2014
Service Areas 17 states including CO, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, MO, NC, NV, OH, OR, SC, TX, UT, VA
Service Types Solar panel system installations and monitoring
Types of Panels Sold Monocrystalline black-on-black panels between 315 and 335 watts from brands including Trina and Canadian Solar
Backup Battery Options Not yet offered
Certifications North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners (NABCEP) technicians
Better Business Bureau (BBB) Rating A+ with accreditation

The best way to assess whether solar is a practical option is to get quotes from a local installer. To receive a free quote from Blue Raven Solar, or a similar provider in your area, fill out the 30-second form below.

Blue Raven Solar Overview

Founded in 2014, this young solar power provider boasts a stellar reputation anchored in exceptional customer service and an innovative solar financing model. Its mission is to make homeowners' lives better by reducing their utility bills, increasing their reliance on clean and abundant renewable energy and providing a world-class customer experience through a reliable sales process and speedy, high-quality installations.

Though Blue Raven Solar may not be a household name like some other top solar companies, the growing provider has expanded its service area to an impressive 17 states and has no plans of slowing. Solar giant SunPower recently acquired Blue Raven Solar for $165 million, a testament to its growth and potential in the residential solar market. As of now, it does not appear that Blue Raven's operations will be affected by the acquisition.

Blue Raven Solar Services and Installation

Blue Raven Solar installs residential solar panels with top-of-the-line products and inverters. It sells exclusively monocrystalline Tier 3 black-on-black solar panels (between 315 and 335 watts) to provide a seamless look on your rooftop. Brands used in Blue Raven installations typically include Trina and Canadian Solar, which are both known for their reliable, relatively affordable solar panels. Although Blue Raven Solar does not yet offer solar battery installations, it plans to soon.

Blue Raven strives to provide a world class customer experience through a reliable sales process, flexible solar financing and a speedy, high-quality installation. Here's what you can expect the solar panel installation process to look like with Blue Raven Solar.

  1. Receive a free quote by providing some basic information like your address, average monthly energy bill and credit score.
  2. If deemed eligible, Blue Raven Solar will conduct a site visit at your home to examine the type of roof you have as well as its quality and electrical status.
  3. After the site visit, Blue Raven will work with you to draw up a maximum efficiency plan for your roof. It's at this stage that your solar consultant will be able to answer any questions you may have about the solar panel installation process, solar tax credits, state solar incentives and financing options.
  4. Once all your questions have been answered and you feel confident in your decision, Blue Raven Solar will draw up your solar contract and apply for city permits. Blue Raven will handle all the paperwork, but expect this process to take a few weeks.
  5. After applying for city permits, Blue Raven Solar will get in touch with your utility company to enroll you in its net metering program, if applicable. Incentives like net metering are important to understand prior to signing a contract.
  6. Once all permits, agreements and plans are in order, Blue Raven Solar will install your solar energy system. This can be carried out in as little as one day depending on the complexity of your system.
  7. Before you can turn the system on, you will need to pass inspections carried out by the city and the local utility companies. These are usually separate inspections and processes will vary depending on your location. Blue Raven will handle the logistics.

Solar Panel Warranty

Blue Raven Solar provides its customers with a 25-year product warranty, which will cover issues related to the manufacturing of the solar panels themselves. Routine maintenance, such as solar panel cleaning or snow removal, is the responsibility of the homeowner.

Like most solar panel installers, Blue Raven also provides a 10-year workmanship warranty that covers homeowners against faulty workmanship or errors by the installation team.

The company prides itself on customer satisfaction — and thousands of positive Blue Raven Solar reviews can tell you it's not just an advertising tactic. One nice perk of going with this company is that it will cover the cost to repair any solar system that is underperforming its expected rate. Note that this production guarantee only lasts for two years, so be sure to monitor your system closely after installation.

Blue Raven Solar Costs and Financing

The cost of solar is difficult to estimate by provider, as it can vary so widely depending on your state, roof and energy needs. However, Blue Raven sets itself apart from most competitors with its exclusive solar financing plan, BluePower+.

Financing Options Through Blue Raven Solar

BluePower+ is a financing option available only to Blue Raven Solar customers. Unlike most other solar loans, BluePower+ offers the unique advantages of a $0-upfront option for the first 18 months of a system's life, as well as a fixed repayment rate and the ability to pay the loan off at any time without penalty. The company claims this attractive financing option (when coupled with the federal tax credit) allows customers to pay off more than 33% of the overall cost of a system within the first 18 months after installation. This adjustment quickly accelerates the solar panel payback period for Blue Raven customers.

Blue Raven Solar does not offer solar leases or power purchase agreements (PPAs).

Blue Raven Solar Reviews

As Blue Raven Solar positions itself as a leader in customer experience and satisfaction, it's no surprise that it has received some standout feedback. Let's take a look at a few examples of positive and negative Blue Raven Solar reviews.

Positive Blue Raven Solar Reviews

Most satisfied customers post reviews similar to that below, praising Blue Raven's customer service:

"Blue Raven did an excellent job under-promising and over-delivering, contrary to most competitors. Install was completed quickly, correctly, and all inspections were tailored to my schedule. My power bill is completely gone, and my property value has increased at the same time. Strongly recommend it."
– Justin via Google Reviews

"Blue Raven Solar made this so easy. They got the permits, contacted my HOA, found a great roof company for my new roof and then installed my solar panels. The solar install team was so nice, on time, efficient and professional. If you are looking for solar, use Blue Raven Solar!"
– Cindy via BBB

Negative Blue Raven Solar Reviews

As with any young company, Blue Raven Solar has experienced some growing pains. Most negative Blue Raven Solar reviews involve difficulties in communication after a sale.

"Terrible experience. We have a $20,000+ solar package with this company that hasn't worked correctly for over a year. (All the while I've been paying for it.) Every time that we schedule to have it taken care of, the company finds some excuse to put it off."
– Joshua via BBB

Blue Raven Solar strives for exemplary service, so it has personally replied to most if not all of its negative feedback online. Much of Blue Raven Solar's growth is credited to its referral program, which serves as a testament to the overall satisfaction of its customers.

Final Thoughts on Blue Raven Solar

Blue Raven Solar's innovative financing model, exceptional customer experience, quality warranty and A+ rating from the BBB make it a safe and reliable choice for solar customers. Tackling financing and solar loan strategies can be a tough challenge for a new solar adopter, but Blue Raven sets itself apart from the competition with its straightforward financial solution that provides immediate returns.

Expanding with the speed and success of Blue Raven Solar would be a challenge for most solar providers, but Blue Raven is addressing these challenges head-on. The provider has delivered on customer expectations during a rapid stage of growth and is expanding offerings of backup batteries to provide further customization for its customers.

Blue Raven Solar Pros Blue Raven Solar Cons
Innovative financing options No backup battery options
Exceptional service and customer satisfaction Little customization
Energy monitoring service available No solar lease or PPA option available
Quickly growing service areas

Based on our research, we recommend Blue Raven Solar to customers who are new to solar, don't need customization or don't have an advanced understanding of the technicalities behind a solar panel installation. Its straightforward financing, trusted sales staff and customer service make the process simple and easy to understand for a customer new to solar. Though an impressive young company, Blue Raven Solar may not provide the best services for those seeking a specific brand of panel, backup battery options or more custom features.

Solar Energy Provider Comparison

Unless you're handy enough to complete a DIY solar project, most homeowners considering solar will have to find a local installer to complete the design, permitting and installation of solar panels. But which is the right choice for your home?

Let's compare Blue Raven Solar to some of the other name-brand solar companies in the U.S: Sunrun and SunPower. Overall, Blue Raven Solar excels in customer satisfaction relative to its competitors, earning it a rank among the top national providers.

Blue Raven Solar Sunpower Sunrun
Year Started 2014 1985 2007
Services Offered Solar panel installation, monitoring, maintenance Solar panel installation, battery installation, monitoring Solar panel installation, battery installation, monitoring, maintenance
Batteries Offered No Yes Yes
Service Areas CO, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, MO, NC, NV, OH, OR, SC, TX, UT, VA All 50 States AZ, CA, CO, CT, FL, HI, IL, MD, MA, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, PA, RI, SC, TX, VT, WI, Puerto Rico and Washington D.C.
BBB Rating A+ A+ B+
Payment Options Cash, in-house financing plans Cash, loan, lease Cash, loan, lease, PPA

FAQ: Blue Raven Solar

How does Blue Raven Solar work?

Blue Raven Solar installs residential solar panels with top-of-the-line products and inverters across 17 states as of 2021. Complete with design, permitting, installation and custom financing of PV panels, Blue Solar offers comprehensive services for those looking for a solar panel array.

What kind of company is Blue Raven?

Blue Raven Solar is a regional residential solar panel provider and installer. It was recently acquired by national provider SunPower.

How long has Blue Raven Solar been around?

Blue Raven Solar was founded in 2014, which makes its service area of 17 states all the more impressive. Within seven years, Blue Raven Solar's staff has expanded from three to over 1,400 employees.

Is Blue Raven Solar a good place to work?

In 2021, Blue Raven Solar ranked in the top 20 Best Places to Work in Glassdoor's annual Employees' Choice Awards. Coupled with a 4.3 out of 5-star rating on Glassdoor, the award proves Blue Raven Solar is a good choice if employee satisfaction is an important factor in your employment decision.

Where is Blue Raven Solar available?

Blue Raven Solar offers service in 17 states including Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Virginia.

Karsten Neumeister is a writer and renewable energy specialist with a background in writing and the humanities. Before joining EcoWatch, Karsten worked in the energy sector of New Orleans, focusing on renewable energy policy and technology. A lover of music and the outdoors, Karsten might be found rock climbing, canoeing or writing songs when away from the workplace.

The New York Times published an astonishing article last week that blames green power for difficulties countries are facing to mitigate climate change.

The article by Eduardo Porter, How Renewable Energy is Blowing Climate Change Efforts Off Course, serves as a flagship for an on-going attack on the growth of renewables. It is so convoluted and inaccurate that it requires a detailed response.

Our planet is burning up from fossil fuels and being irradiated by decrepit money-losing reactors that blow up. Blaming renewable energy for all that is like blaming the peace movement for causing wars.

As Mark Jacobson, director of Atmosphere/Energy Program at Stanford University, pointed out to me via email:

The New York Times article "suffers from the inaccurate assumption that existing expensive nuclear that is shut down will be replaced by natural gas. This is impossible in California, for example, since gas is currently 60 percent of electricity supply but state law requires non-large-hydro clean renewables to be 50 percent by 2030. This means that, with the shuttering of Diablo Canyon nuclear facility be 2025, gas can by no greater than 35-44 percent of California supply since clean renewables will be at least 50 percent (and probably much more) and large hydro will be 6-15 percent. As such, gas must go down no matter what. In fact, 100 percent of all new electric power in Europe in 2015 was clean, renewable energy with no new net gas, and 70 percent of all new energy in the U.S. was clean and renewable, so the fact is nuclear is not being replaced by gas but by clean, renewable energy.

"Further, the article fails to consider the fact that the cost of keeping nuclear open is often much greater than the cost of replacing the nuclear with wind or solar. For example, three upstate New York nuclear plants require $7.6 billion in subsidies from the state to stay open 12 years. To stay open after that, they will need an additional $805 million/year at a minimum, or at least $17.7 billion from 2028-2050, or a total of $25.3 billion from 2016 to 2050. If, on the other hand, those three plants were replaced with wind today, the total cost between now and 2050 would be $11.9 billion. Thus, keeping the nuclear plants open 12 years costs an additional $7.6 billion; keeping it open 34 years costs and additional $25.3 billion, in both cases with zero additional climate benefit, in comparison with shuttering the three plants today and replacing them with onshore wind."

Gideon Forman, climate change and transportation policy analyst at David Suzuki Foundation, also shared his dismay on the Times piece:

"The notion that non-renewable power sources are necessary is questionable at best. Some scientists believe that, over the next few decades, renewables could provide all our power. One is Stanford Prof. Mark Jacobson. He has done modeling to show the U.S. could be entirely powered by renewables by 2050.

"Porter is wrong to claim that nuclear produces 'zero-carbon electricity.' If we look at the full nuclear cycle, including production of uranium fuel, we find it involves considerable carbon emissions. Jacobson and his co-author, Mark A. Delucchi, have written, 'Nuclear power results in up to 25 times more carbon emissions than wind energy, when reactor construction and uranium refining and transport are considered.'

"Porter says if American nuclear plants were replaced with gas-fired generators it would lead to 200 million tons of additional CO2 emissions annually. But it's wrong to suggest that nuclear could only be replaced by natural gas. A full suite of renewables—along with energy storage and conservation programs—could meet demand, certainly in the not very distant future.

"Porter suggests that nuclear power can 'stay on all the time.' But of course, nuclear plants, like all generators, are sometimes out of service for maintenance. This downtime can be considerable. For example, it is expected that from 2017 to 2021, Ontario's Pickering nuclear station will require back-up almost 30 percent of the time."

Karl Grossman, professor of journalism at State University of New York/College at Old Westbury, called the Times piece "outrageous." He told me:

"The Times piece continues the paper's long record of minimizing and downplaying—not recognizing and indeed often denying—the deadly impacts of nuclear power. It's been a shameful journalistic dysfunction. As Alden Whitman, a Times reporter for 25 years, told me, 'there certainly was never any effort made to do' in-depth or investigative reporting on nuclear power. 'I think there stupidity involved,' he said, and further, 'The Times regards itself as part of the establishment." Or as Anna Mayo of The Village Voice related: 'I built a full-time career on covering nuclear horror stories that the New York Times neglected.'"

So where do I stand on the Porter piece? Here are my eight biggest complaints:

1. Though viewed as the "journal of record," the Times has been consistently pro-nuclear. Its slanted coverage has served as an industry bulwark for decades. A long-time atomic beat reporter, Matt Wald, went straight from the Times to a job with the Nuclear Energy Institute, the primary public relations front for the reactor industry. The Times has a long history as a cheerleader for nuclear power dating back to the atomic bomb era, when it consistently denied health problems from radioactive fallout. It also denied health problems resulting from radiation releases at Three Mile Island, and much more. Now it has taken a major role in defending the nuclear industry from the renewable energy revolution that is driving it to bankruptcy while bringing a tsunami of reactor shut downs. It's these shut downs that now seem to worry the paper.

2. The primary technological transition in the world of electric power today is from fossil and nuclear fuels (King CONG: Coal, Oil, Nukes, Gas) to a Solartopian system based on green power. But there's a deeper shift going on: from centralized, grid-based corporate control to decentralized citizen-based community control. When nuclear power and its apologists defend continued operations at dangerously deteriorated reactors, they are more broadly defending the power and profits of huge corporations that are completely invested in a centralized grid. When they argue that renewables "can't do the job," they're in fact working to prolong the lives of the large generators that are the "base load" basis of a corporate grid-based supply system.

3. But that grid is now obsolete. What strikes the ultimate terror in utility boardrooms is the revolutionary reality of a decentralized power supply, free of large generators, comprised instead of millions of small photovoltaic (PV) panels owned by individuals. Industry sources have widely confirmed that this decentralized, post-grid model means the end of big utilities. Thus when they fight against PV and for nuclear power, they are fighting not for the life of the planet, but for the survival of their own corporate profits.

4. Some utilities do support some renewables, but primarily in the form of large centralized grid-based solar and wind turbine farms. Pacific Gas & Electric said it will replace the power from the Diablo Canyon nuke plant with solar energy. But PG&E is simultaneously fighting rooftop solar, which will allow individual homeowners to disconnect from the grid. Germany's transition from fossil-nukes to renewables has also been marked by conflict between large grid-based wind farms versus small community-based renewables.

5. PG&E and other major utilities are fighting against net metering and other programs that promote small-scale renewables. The Koch Brothers' American Legislature Exchange Council (ALEC) has spread a wide range of taxes and disincentives passed by the states to make it ever-harder to go solar. All this is being done to preserve the grid-based monopolies that own large fossil/nuclear facilities.

6. The idea that nuclear power might fight climate change, and that environmentalists might support it, is a recent concoction, a disgraceful, desperate load of utility hype meant to defend the status quo. Fukushima, unsolved waste problems and the plummeting price of renewables have solidified the environmental community's opposition to nuke power. These reactors are dirty and dangerous. They are not carbon-free and do emit huge quantities of heated water and steam into the ecosphere. The utility industry can't get private liability insurance for them, and relies on the 1957 Price-Anderson Act to protect them from liability in a major catastrophe. The industry continually complains about subsidies to renewable energy but never mentions this government protection program without which all reactors would close.

7. Not just nuke power but the entire centralized fossil/nuke-based grid system is now being undermined by the massive drops in the price of renewable energy, and massive rises in its efficiency and reliability. The critical missing link is battery technology. Because the sun and wind are intermittent, there needs to be energy storage to smooth out supply. Elon Musk's billion-dollar Tesla Gigafactory in Nevada and many other industrial ventures indicate major battery breakthroughs in storage is here today.

8. Porter's NY Times piece correctly says that the massive amounts of cheap, clean renewables flooding the grid in Europe and parts of the U.S. are driving nuclear power plants into bankruptcy. At least a dozen reactor shut downs have been announced in the U.S. since 2012 and many more are on their way. In Japan 52 of the 54 reactors online before the Fukushima disaster are now closed. And, Germany has pledged to shut all its reactors by 2022.

But Porter attacks this by complaining that those nukes were supplying base load power that must be otherwise—according to him—shored up with fossil burners. Here's his key line:

"Renewable sources are producing temporary power gluts from Australia to California, driving out other energy sources that are still necessary to maintain a stable supply of power."

But as all serious environmentalists understand, the choice has never been between nukes versus fossil fuels. It's between centralized fossil/nukes versus decentralized renewables.

Porter's article never mentions the word "battery" or the term "rooftop solar." But these are the two key parts in the green transition already very much in progress.

So here is what the Times obviously can't bring itself to say: "Cheap solar panels on rooftops are now making the grid obsolete." The key bridging element of battery back-up capability is on its way. Meanwhile there is absolutely no need for nuclear power plants, which at any rate have long since become far too expensive to operate.

Spending billions to prop up dying nuke reactors for "base load" generation is pure corporate theft at the public expense, both in straight financial terms and in the risk of running badly deteriorated reactors deep into the future until they inevitably melt down or blow up.

Those billions instead should go to accelerating battery production and distribution, and making it easier, rather than harder, to gain energy independence using the wind and the sun.

All this has serious real-world impacts. In Ohio, for example, a well-organized shift to wind and solar was derailed by the Koch-run legislature. Some $2 billion in wind-power investments and a $500 million solar farm were derailed. There are also serious legal barriers now in place to stop homeowners from putting solar shingles and panels on their rooftops.
Meanwhile, FirstEnergy strong-armed the Ohio Public Utilities Commission into approving a huge bailout to keep the seriously deteriorated Davis-Besse nuke operating, even though it cannot compete and is losing huge sums of money. Federal regulators have since put that bailout on hold.

Arizona and other Koch-owned legislatures have moved to tax solar panels, ban solar shingles and make it illegal to leave the grid without still paying tribute to the utilities who own it. Indeed, throughout the U.S. and much of the western world, corporate-owned governments are doing their best to slow the ability of people to use renewables to rid themselves of the corporate grid.

For an environmental movement serious about saving the Earth from climate change, this is a temporary barrier. The Times and its pro-nuke allies in the corporate media will continue to twist reality. But the Solartopian revolution is proceeding ahead of schedule and under budget. A renewable, decentralized energy system is very much in sight.

The only question is how long corporate nonsense like this latest NY Times screed can delay this vital transition. Our planet is burning up from fossil fuels and being irradiated by decrepit money-losing reactors that blow up. Blaming renewable energy for all that is like blaming the peace movement for causing wars.

The centralized King CONG grid and its obsolete owners are at the core of the problem. So are the corporate media outlets like the New York Times that try to hide that obvious reality.

Harvey Wasserman's SOLARTOPIA! OUR GREEN-POWERED EARTH is at www.solartopia.org, where his
AMERICA AT THE BRINK OF REBIRTH: THE ORGANIC SPIRAL OF US HISTORY is soon to arrive. He edits www.nukefree.org and hosts the Solartopia Green Power & Wellness Show at www.prn.fm
.

Trending
Harvey Wasserman
Insights Writers
Trending
Trending