The study you've linked to does not support your claims.
Only two out of the 15 SSD in their test suffered from serious issues. One unit suffered from an SSD metadata issue that effectively prevented access to about 30% of the data on it, and another failed entirely, after having been subjected to 136 power failures in rapid succession.
Only two HDDs were included in the test, and were subject to a much smaller of power failures. HDD #1 was subjected to only a single power failure (after which it corrupted a write), and HDD #2 was subject to only 24 power failures. How anyone could claim that this is evidence that HDDs are more reliable than SSDs is beyond me. Even the authors of the study don't claim that their results show HDDs to be more reliable than SSDs, they only claim that enterprise HDDs are more reliable than budget HDDs.
Furthermore, none of the drives were recent, with most being from 2011, and one being as old as from 2009. It's difficult to draw any conclusions on the current SSDs on the market based on testing results on drives from three to five years ago. There has been enormous technological progress in the SSD market over that timespan.
It's also worth pointing out that newer filesystems are more resilient to many of the faults noted in that paper, especially when redundancy is included. Linux has ZFS, and Windows has ReFS. Both support copy-on-write and block checksums, which go a long way to surviving the sort of issues that both SSDs and HDDs suffer from on power failure.
Using a system with a UPS or built-in battery does not completely protect you from unexpected power loss, but I don't think that it's happened to me more than once in the past few years. It certainly has never happened to me 136 times in a row at 8-second intervals.