This isn't an endorsement but I think you are worried about the wrong thing.
Bitcoin is an "embarrassingly parallel" problem (google it). The specs you cited contained no die size. Even if there was no change in the hashing engine design, the 180nm design could have consisted of 1 hashing engine per chip (@ 250 MH/s nominal) and the 130nm design consist of 16 hashing engines (16*250MH/s nominal) per chip. Obviously the die size would be 8x larger (16*(130/180)^2) and use more power but without more details like die size, estimate marginal cost, and power consumption of both the 180nm & 130nm it is not possible to draw any conclusions on the realism of the specs.
They've simulated one thing and then chose to manufacture another.
(...)
2) Post simulations yielded
positive results on a
130nm, 300Mhz, Power 0.8W, 6.5x6.5mm design.
The team is working on HDL optimizations to get 16 cores for chip.
Some math, quoted from the tech team
"300M*16=4.8G, 0.8*16=12.8W, Area=130,0000*16=2080,0000, make the utilization ratio to 50%, the chip size will be about 4160,0000um2, about 6.5mm x 6.5mm"
"Power consumption per GHash is 12.8W/4.8G=2.7W/GHash"
"Estimated selling price for chip, 8-9 USD"
(...)