1000+ft from the road... Long run to the grid or Generator?

Re: 1000+ft from the road... Long run to the grid or Generator?

I believe that if each conductor terminates on a different device (such as a fuse or circuit breaker), then the two conductors are not technically in parallel. My belief is not based on any advanced understanding of NEC, but is based on comments by 'inetdog' in another thread.

Regardless of code, this should only be done if the reason for the 'parallel' conductors is to reduce voltage drop. If the reason for multiple conductors is to increase ampacity, then the use of multiple fuses/CB will lead to a cascading failure of the fuses/CB.

Thats an interesting idea, I never considered that. I supposed you could join the conductors on the load end, and feed the line end with two separate breakers then they are not in parallel and you can then use any size you want. However than you have two branch circuits or feeders and per the NEC you cannot feed a structure with multiple feeders or branch circuits. You may want to size each breaker at half the ampacity of the wire because a fault get be fed from both breakers. Although if this feeder is outside its entire length than you actually dont need any overcurrent protection at all. Well this is all irrelevant anyway since its sounds like the OP doesnt really have to follow code.

That /urd is pretty cheap. You have a few choices
1) use 3 conductor wire, with two hots and one ground and use a transformer at the load end to get your 120/240 split phase. (NEC compliant)
2) use 4 conductor wire with two hots, neutral, and ground then no transformer required (NEC compliant)
3. use 3 conductor wire with two hots and a neutral and "rebond" the neutral and ground at the load end, no transformer required (was NEC compliant until 2008 )
4. use two conductors, both as hots, 240 ->120/240 transformer on load end. There would not be an EGC, which sounds unsafe but the only the thing EGC does in this case is provide a path back to the source for a line to transformer case fault which in the scheme of things is quite unlikely. Everything fed off the secondary would return to the secondary winding so all loads would be grounded back to the source.

Note that options 1 and 4 could use #6 wire while 2 and 3 require the #2. This is because the transformer allows you twice the voltage (yes if you used two smaller equally balanced loads 2 and 3 could use smaller wire too, but im assuming that isnt likely or practical so your charger would effectively be using the feeder at 120V completely unbalanced).

One more suggestion is you could check with your utility to see if they provide a certain amount of feed free for new accounts. I know mine will give you 200 feet for free which will cut a nice chunk off.

Re: 1000+ft from the road... Long run to the grid or Generator?

Yeah I woud go with option 3 or 4. The wire cost difference isnt really that big a deal and even though a 3KVA transformer wont cost much, that will eat up a chunk of the smaller wire savings. For my situation I would go with option #4, going with the small wire, small conduit, small trench is a big gain because of the mini trencher I already have, but I have to stick with 3/4 or maybe 1" conduit. If I went with bigger wire I would need to either rent a trencher or use my backhoe which would be more money and time. If you have to rent a trencher regardless, probably anything you get will to at least a three inch trench anyway.

Re: 1000+ft from the road... Long run to the grid or Generator?

Code says the smallest service drop or lateral service conductors that can be paralleled is something fairly big, like 1 or 0 gauge wire and bigger.
#3 isn't code any more? what is the world coming to.