The author's calculations are rather suspect.

TVs and appliances
There are several unsupported assumptions and flawed calculations here. For example, what is the basis for assuming that "a little over 5 people" will be watching each TV? Even if the Reuters story estimate of 160 million people globally is correct, the author's assumption of viewing habits is suspect. Then there is the rather curious claim that "The average TV uses around 100 watt-hours", which is then somehow inflated to 1.25kWh later in the piece. This has several problems: power is measured in Watts, with Watt hours a measure of the amount of energy consumed over a period of use; the "average" figure used is plucked from thin air anyway and the assumption that each of these "average" TVS will be used for 10 hours to watch the event is not explained or, I suspect, able to be supported. There is another assumption that isn't mentioned, which is that the TVs and other appliances in question would not have been in use whether the Superbowl was being broadcast or not. Of course they would have been.

The stadium
Reasonably good effort here, the figures are probably not far wide of the mark. One thing that should be considered though is that the tens of thousands of fans at the game would have been somewhere else if not there and their personal power use during those activities might well have been higher than their share of the stadium's consumption. Assuming 50000 fans and 10MWh, each fan is consuming just 200Wh at the game, or 40W for the 5 hours of game time! Much less than a typical Western home's consumption.

Transport
Really, Mr Author, all the fans fly to the stadium?

I'm sure these types of events use a lot of power that might not otherwise have been consumed, but this article over-eggs the pudding considerably.

I'll do the figures for a later post, but I'd suggest that the real numbers are half or less of those in the article. Exaggeration isn't necessary to make a good case to reduce energy use.

That was a pretty good break down Craig. Thanks for concisely pointing out the flaws in the author's evidence.

So often we get presented with 'facts' that simply don't stand up when they are analysed.

This is one of my pet peeves. I feel there has been a general dumbing down of society over the past 20-30 years and many people now simply just don't have the mental capacity, awareness, general knowledge, or common sense to spot suspect data or flimsy argument.

Too many people accept whatever is presented to them without question; hence the success of so many computer generated special effect plot-less action movies which serve to reinforce the continuation of the dumbing down of our youth.

Good one,Craig.
I remember, many years ago, a group going on about the fuel wasted by motor racing. A comparison was done with a major football event that took place on the same day.
When the estimated fuel use by fans was calculated/estimated the number of footy fans used more fuel than the racing fans and the race cars combined; the subject then faded away for some reason.

Thanks for that Craig!

In any event, I just didn't know that the footy players were that busy or burned that many calories? Although there are some big boppers in that front line!

[And a better way to have a scum, that trying to shove your head up some dark and smelly place/compress your head down to your navel?]

And having played a couple of games, I'd not be surprised if the stadium shook a little with each one of those "powerhouse" collisions?

They must have to shovel the calories in by the ship load, and sorta like the author's electrifying analysis, if you see the connection?
Rhrosty.