Using Swap and hibernate on an SSD: Why do it?

Taken from http://pcmag.com. I'm going to pretend the GPL covers this.

When setting up SSDs on Linux systems, it is generally recommended that you don't set up a swap file and in turn, don't set up hibernation. This is because the more writes to an SSD, the quicker the cells wear out and the more rapidly a SSD approaches failure. But when it comes down to it, how realistic and reasonable is this advice?

I started looking into this because I am zealous about preserving my laptop battery. Last time around, my laptop reached the point where it lasted about 30 minutes before dying on a full charge. This was only a year after replacing my battery. The problem was I had bad battery practices such as leaving it to charge overnight and letting my battery regularly fully discharge which is really harmful to Lithium-Ion batteries. Knowing what not to do, I set out setting up preventative measures so this wouldn't happen to my new Dell XPS 13.

The problem was that GNOME is set up to automatically shutdown at 5% battery, lower than the recommended 7% for Lithium-Ion batteries and the much safer 10%. While setting about changing this, I learned that the easiest and most efficient way to do this was setting up hibernate on my computer and making it hibernate at 10% battery. And this led me to my next problem, which was that hibernate is only available if you have swap, a process recommended against for SSDs, set up.

Lots of searching led me to two camps of thinking. The first being that Swap is a no-fly zone for those wishing not to break their hardware, and the second being that this is an over-cautionary suggestion with some actual merit but no actual practicality.

M.2 Type 2280 SSDs, like the one in my XPS 13, have an average estimated life of 380TB worth of writes. For a conservative estimate, I will say that it gets 300TB, or 300,000GB worth of writes. Since my Swap is the same size as my RAM (8GB), each time the computer hibernates, it writes 8GB (actually more like 2 or 3 GB but like I said earlier, conservative estimates) each time it hibernates.

So 300TB divided by 8GB each time it hibernates comes out to 37,500 writes due to hibernation before the SSD burns out. If I hibernate once a day (divide by 365), then it will take me 102 YEARS to burn out my SSD. In actuality, I only hibernate more like once a week due to my not paying attention to my battery life (divide 37,500 by 52) which means it will take 721 years to burn out my SSD. The longest I need this SSD to last is at most, 5 years. By then, I will want to upgrade anyways. But I also need my battery to last these 5 years and in my experience, they typically don't last that long. Its a trade I'm willing to make.