There's an order of magnitude error here. That's an increase of about 26x. 8 doublings would require an increase of 256x.
Now, anyone can make a simple math error. But, like, it should be totally obvious to anyone that 7 years of 60% annual growth can't possibly be anywhere near 8 years of 100% annual growth? Or if not anyone, then at least for someone like the author who spends the first page of the article bragging about their credentials in reasoning about exponential growth.
Edit: and this isn't just nitpicking, this faulty result is then used as the basis of the cost reduction estimates.