What's wrong with energy loss?

Could you not just divide the length of the wire by the distance to lose 1 EU/t? For example, copper cable loses 1 EU/t every 5 blocks, so if you had 20 blocks of copper cable you'll do 20 divided by 5, which is 4, meaning that you lose 4 EU/t for energy going through that wire.

As for Iron fences, the need to be placed on top of a powered magnetiser, and you need to be wearing metal boots (might not work with other mods' boots, so try iron and gold, if they don't work then it is bugged.)

Well its easy to calculate the EnergyLoss. You simply start with 0.1 From the beginning and add per wire the loss of it on top...
Also the Values you say are partly only right... Because the Loss Values actually change between insulation. (Thats why i added in IC2 Classic a way to show the loss)
And if the loss is higher then the energy thats getting sended then it stops.
In the solar panel you are partly missinformed. Yes it produces 1EU per tick but it has a 2EU EnergyBuffer so you actually can go 2x the distance. But you get only half the time the energy because it needs 2 Ticks to generate 2EU
(Note: In 1.9.4 in classic there will be a way to show the energy flow + Loss Information of each indiviual part + total loss at that position)

ask and i can may answer it...

Quote from Chocohead

The iron fence tower goes next to a magnetiser, so that the side with the 2 white rectangles (which is where the fence should connect to but doesn't :|) is facing it.

Yeah thats true. But you have to know this change too:
Magnetizer no longer charges the Blocks so you have to constantly power the Magnetizer so you can move up...
(Before it was you charge the iron fences and then you were able to move up even if the Magnetizer was empty)

Yeah it makes partly more sense... But the way it is solved is not really server friendly & you can no longer make charge based systems... (Like charging for a short time and then you can only go up once a ladder)
(And the none serverfriendly system is because you make 4x more block checks per tick (times the player) and if a lot of players do that at once you can get a drag only from that (because its using the entity ticktime)

It checkt every 20 Ticks if the blocks are charged if not it recharges them. If the Magnetizer was empty it did not check at all.
And comparing both to each other. When a people grab on to these things its first: Checking more blocks at once (simply 2-3 Blocks iterating through all Iron Fences + 4 Horizontal Coliding blocks each tick times the entities) The amount of lag thats added by the old way is yeah constant but does not get more then it is before... The other side gets a lot more then it was before...

Simply: Yeah when nobody uses it at all then doing it the Exp way is better. But iron Fences are fences and when you use them for decoration its actually causes lag when player walks just nearby them....

So yeah... I think the way you are doing is more laggy. Unless you prevent the placing of them unless they are connected to a magnetizer...
But even then the impact change on the use is drasticly higher then the original thing...

But ic2exp went only that route because they run out of blockstates because it would need 16 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 (256 BlockStates)

The normal senario is that the Fences are stacked... So the more you use the laggier it will be and the curve with the Exp System goes way higher then the old way is ever going.... (Its still 5 * (2 or 3) times more checking)
On Top of that you have the Magnetizer still ticking. Making every tick almost the same amount of lag as it would do with the fence checking... And since the original system was delayed the amount of lag is actually less then the the current... (Simply dissable ticks in the magnetizer of IC2 Exp and yes then it is true or decrease the trickrate to 1/20 and then it would less laggy. But else no its way laggier in that use...)
Em yeah.... Makes so much snese...