Not easy, without a reference. And I believe I have read it in the past, as as you say you have presented it many times here in the past.
However, I give you full credit for having carried out an analysis, even though I may disagree with it, and feel that your position is much more respectable than I had previously been led to believe, with statements without an analysis of any kind, as far as I could recall.

My comments should not be taken as insulting, merely as a disagreement with yourself on the inevitability of your conclusions, and my comments refer to your arguments, not yourself.

Please note that the 'we' referred to those who had commented up to that point in time.
To examine his claims for yourself, go here:
http://www.peakoilassociates.com/POAnalysis.html

If you open up the report, you will see that most of it is uncontentious stuff - and the grammar has improved since the last time I looked at what he had to say.
Much of it is simple adaptions of what others have said on this site.
However, when you get to the part where he branches off on his own, on the non-fungibility of energy resources, you can see that one of his primary references is to a report from 1980, fer chrissakes:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11771&page=R1

The 'Exhaustive analysis' he talks of is based on entirely outdated information, since, for instance, battery technology has improved in many respects by something like 8% a year for many years.

The foundation on which he builds his absolute claims for the inability to manage without a huge input of fossil fuels is in fact far from exhaustive, but an incredibly skimpy couple of paragraphs, and the referencs so dated that one can perhaps conclude that the data has been cherry-picked to find something or the other which would give some cover to the assertions made.

If you want to give credence to this, fine.
I do not intend to waste any more time on extreme claims with such flimsy backing that in my view they destroy any credibility.

Quite. It is entirely incorrect to describe me as having some neurotic attachment to BAU, as it is perfectly clear that this is impossible given peak oil, which I entirely accept.

However, it is equally erroneous to imagine that we know exactly what our circumstances will be.

Debate for me follows fairly classical lines, and meta-arguments which go from a general to the particular, such as 'this society is unsustainable', are entirely irrelevant to me.
I want to know what will break down, when, and what would falsify the prediction.

For instance, in the present debate, if someone presents the thesis that society cannot function at all in the absence of fossil fuels, and that this is not substitutable, I want to know which bits don't work, how much of total energy use they constitute.

It was argued on this forum, in my view successfully, that heavy agricultural equipment could not be successfully substituted by electricity, at any rate until decent zinc batteries are developed, but this is a fairly small part of total use and the location is ideal for the use of biofuels which would use up less of the crop than draft animals.
In any case, many here argue that localised agriculture will lead to less need for the largest machines.

On a more general level, it is argued sometimes that finances will preclude just about everything.
Well, debt and credit are fundamentally social constructs, and much less deep than physical limits, and in fact many societies have gone through a financial re-set and been extremely productive afterwards - the bankruptcy of France in the 18th century springs to mind.
It did not noticeably handicap them in fighting the whole of Europe shortly afterwards.

EROI arguments may have more weight, but thin film solar is pretty damn good, and so is nuclear if you don't assume that they are going to do it in as silly a way as can be conceived for the purposes of arguing against it.

Incidentally, I am not essentially opposed to the idea that the grid in many countries may fail - in times of social unrest and poverty, for instance, the distributed nature of wind power may mean that all the transmission lines are stolen at a rate which can't be replaced.

It does not seem tome to be possible though to be categorical that the grid will fail, anymore than I can be categorical that it will not.

We live in uncertain times, and it is well to accept that.
False certitudes do not help.

I'd go along with your notion that we will need to use less power, but it is perhaps still possible that we can live relatively well just the same.
And we will still need to generate a great deal of power, and every single one of them has downsides.

Likeliest in my view is very, very severe dislocation indeed, at least in most places in the world.

I haven't yet spotted any absolute technological limits which mean that a good standard of living in, say, 50 years time will not be possible , hopefully for a gradually falling population.

My own view is that getting there is the problem.