Re: @ scatter
> Well it results in the same illumination levels for longer periods of time.
I.e., more lighting.
> The thrust of the article was that there would suddenly be a big increase in illumination levels
I've just reread it in case I missed something, and nope, sorry, you've projected this onto it; it's just not in there. The article points out that, when light gets cheaper, we buy more of it. It doesn't go into specific details about exactly where that spending occurs.
> it's always rolled out by people trying to diss energy efficiency in lighting.
I don't see any of that here either. I don't think that pointing out that increased efficiency may not have the effects some people claim it will is the same as opposing efficiency.