yes, but if you want to leave a device buried in the middle of nowhere on the ice sheet for 10 years that draws ~30W, an RTG is much simpler (only have to transport it once, no moving parts, no need for exhaust, etc.).
Delivery and deployment costs to the middle of the ice sheet are not cheap.
If you only need 30W for 10 years then Lithium thionyl chloride batteries are a viable option down to -55C. In continuous operation waste heat will give you significant temperature leeway. That’s going to be expensive and very heavy, but there really isn’t a good option for truly remote applications.
30W is kind of the no mans land of remote power. Batteries are becoming seriously impractical, but nothing is the clear winner.
I mean, outside of polar regions, solar + battery hybrids work well enough year-round. Solar + fuel cell + battery hybrids can work in Polar winter if you can transport enough fuel, but the exhaust requirement is a problem (moving parts + can't let your fuel cell + batteries get buried in the snow). The solar panels also need to be raised every once in a while (or mounted high enough in the first place).
Eventually reversible fuel cells might be a good option (use excess solar in the summer to produce methanol or whatever, then consume it in winter).
Lighthouses typically shine a beam up to 20-30 miles, depends on height obviously. I would imagine the loads would be at least 1kW especially with old fashioned incandescent bulbs?
Delivery and deployment costs to the middle of the ice sheet are not cheap.