Listen well to CoPlantNut, he knows what he's talking about.
And never, ever use incandescents for growing plants. For one, your power bill will be absurd, and for another, to produce enough light to matter, you'll produce enough heat to fry your plants.
The ideal light distance from your plants - fluorescent, HPS, or MH - is easily measured with the hand test. Put your hand where the leaves of your plant would be. If it feels hot, the lights are too close. If you can't feel it at all, the plants would appreciate more. You want your hand to feel slightly warm, as if in direct sunlight.
Most plants don't care whether your lights are on 24-7, and most of the ones that do care only care during flowering / fruiting. Since you're almost certainly going to be providing woefully inadequate light, I recommend 24-7.
Have pest control plans in-place for: spider mites, scale, whitefly, and aphids. You'll probably see nothing for a month or two. But if you don't do regular inspections and know what to look for, they can get out of control in a hurry. Read up about each of those pests to know what to look for and how to control them. Don't count on luck or get complacent, odds are very high that you'll get at least one of them. Be ready to quarantine, and even to destroy plants if necessary. The sooner you catch an infestation, the less likely that will be.
Expect your plants to use water at different rates. Plan watering accordingly. A hose in-house coming from the faucet will be greatly appreciated with time.
Expect to have to clean up leaves. Some plants are worse than others.
The first thing that caught my attention was the LED light, I got a device with 3 light bulbs consuming only 3W, amazing!, But happens to be equivalent to a 40w bulb or 600 lumens approx.
Advertising nonsense. When it comes to growing plants, you can roughly consider all "watts" the same on HPS, MH, fluorescent, and white LED. They're not exactly the same, but close enough. Blue or red LEDs can get you maybe a 1.5x to 2x bonus compared to the wattage, but nothing like the ridiculous claims lots of people make about them (also, I recommend against using only LED, some plants are very frequency sensitive and can have a bad reaction). And of course, never use incandescent.
It was not enough, so I looked for something more powerful and I opted for a low-consumption equivalent to 150w, and 300w another to test.
You mean ~35W and 65W - real consumption values. These incandescent equivalents are pointless because you don't grow plants with incandescents. 65W of electricity is really nothing for indoor growing. I use about 400W of electricity per square meter and really could use more. From that (per square meter) I get about 60W of usable light, and adjusting for PAR equivalences compared to the sun (see later), it's maybe equivalent to 80W of sunlight. Of that, maybe
60W sunlight-equivalent hits the leaves. The sun is 1000W per square meter against a perpendicular surface and almost all of the light hits something. Now, the sun has a capacity factor (clouds, angles, night, etc) of maybe 15% or so, so that's maybe
150W per square meter on average, but you get the picture, it takes a LOT of energy to even come close to that which the sun provides.
It is equivalent to 4500 lumens,
Lumens are also a bad unit of measure. The lumen scale greatly rewards green (which humans have the highest sensitivity to) and punishes blue and red (which humans have the least sensitivity to). Plants are inverted, with the greatest response to red and blue. The best scale to use for describing light output useful to plants is PAR (photosynthetically active radiation), but very few bulbs give PAR ratings. The ultimate scale of energy efficiency for bulbs for growing plants is "PAR / Watts". You could also get a good idea of the efficiency of a bulb by its EQE and then adjust that by its spectrum (EQE = external quantum efficiency: how much energy in equals how much light energy out - no "lumens" correction). But again, don't expect to see EQE ratings on random lightbulbs.
Unfortunate, I know. So I recommend just sticking to a raw watts-to-watts comparison baselined in the ballpark of fluorescents, and taking into account any extenuating circumstances (such as unusually efficient / inefficient bulbs and/or frequency response). To keep it simple, you can say something like "65 watts fluorescent" or whatnot.