Also, they might try using compact fluorescent lamps (CFL), which use less power but light a bigger area.
Although this statement does not change much the merit of what the author wrote in toto, the statement above should be explained a little more. Even as space and number of words might have prevented her from writing more, I see it as a little dangerous because it may easily be misunderstood.
There is a consensus that CFL's are more economical in the long run because they use less power. What this means is that a lower wattage CFL bulb can give off light (brightness and area lighted) similar to a higher wattage incandescent bulb (for example, a 18W CFL bulb can give the same amount of light from a 60W incandescent bulb, or a 25W CFL is comparatively equivalent to a 100W incandescent bulb). So instead of paying for 60W of power, one pays only for 18W of power for the same amount of light.*
What had the tendency to be misleading is the statement regarding the bigger area. The CFL's will light up the SAME AREA unless you put in a higher wattage CFL bulb, say 32W which can have the same lighting capacity of a 150W incandescent bulb.
Of course, the type of bulb and lighting fixtures will also spell the difference in the area that will be lighted.
*There have been questions about power factor of CFL's that may affect load and power generation and distribution losses passed on to the consumers, but this is another matter. There is also the increased heating bills in homes in colder countries because CFL's give o less heat, which is not a concern for us in the tropics, obviously.