Well, it could be the right thing to do for all reasons, it would depend on the design and installation. Reactors have a funny way of starting out cost competitive and ballooning in 4X or %x cost monsters. Then the public gets the tab. But, you are right about it being an ideal application. There are some military models that have been around for 30-40 years that have no moving parts and work on the decay rate of a material. I am not sure how much power they make though...

It looks to me like Fairbanks needs a Small Modular Reactor (SMR) for affordable electricity. Terrestrial Energy of Canada is trying to build a small molten salt nuclear reactor for Yellowknife. I just remember the environmentalists always used to say "Split wood, not atoms!" Oh well, I guess what the environmentalists are really opposed to is humans. Well, I'm a human, and I'm not going away.

Indeed,you have an inherent right to take care of yourself. When some genius has a better, more economical solution, it will replace it. That is the right answer, use the power of the mind, and create, not dictate. But then, what would government do?

Alaska should do what Arizona did, fill suit in Federal Court, and have their Senators come down hard on the EPA.
Many Arizonans who live at 4k to 7k feet in elevation burn wood during the winter as supplemental heat to propane. Propane although readily available is not cheap, averaging about 2.35/gal. Being on Soc. Sec. makes it hard to fill up a 180 gal. tank. I rather go outside and chainsaw and chop up the pile of stumpage I have. Then feed it into my cast iron stove.

As good an endorsement as you can ask for..

There you go...

Now hold on there! Polar bear and wolves need sustenance as well and this could be the front line contribution to the "Save The Bear and Wolves" campaign. Oh wait - let's not give the poor darlings heartburn from tainted meat - quick, call the FDA!

Pruitt has led the legal challenges to the EPA for years, so he has put his personal commitment into stopping Federal overreach. The Sierra Club considers him the antichrist, which I consider an endorsement.

Guess what, it's -10 again up there...in fact, it's damn cold even in Oregon (25). I burn pellets because it is a lot easier to clean, but I used to burn wood. I could barely see any smoke from my stove when properly set, and I have seen some real smokers. No one ever said a word to them, so I assume the almighty state thought it was ok...

But without it, Kalifornia would still not be able to see scenic views because of their own smog...it's for the children...the children..(to quote the overused excuse for anything they want)..

I hate to say this, but my experience is State Agencies are intertwined with the Feds like a sci fi creature, kill one, kill both. We lost a large horse business in our county because the county, state and feds gave the guy (who was willing to spend a couple million to build a large equestrian site that would have brought national shows) to have to quit, as they insisted on over 5 million in "modifications" to protect "valuable wetlands" (i.e. swamp).

Wood is also carbon-rich and anti-tree. Not only does it cause EPA C-OCD (environmental chronic obsessive compulsive disorder), it also causes global warbling and the disastrous effect of killing trees in places no one wants to live except those people who want to live there.

You seem to be obsessed with facts. Everyone knows facts are not actually true. [Scoff.] Why don't you come and work for us as an independent consultant. We see a "market" for government in your area.

It isn't a matter of an ideal world, it is the practical world. The method of trying to slow down, stop, then reverse the monster is to assume that you can free yourself when tied by a million chains by convincing those who make the chains and install them to be willing to remove one (they are usually making and installing more while one is removed). Spending your time fencing with a dictator is rarely anything more than amusing for the dictator while he knows that he and his minions can dispatch you at any time. This idea of unraveling the dictatorship has been tried and hoped for many times in the past. Ronald Reagan was considered very 'conservative' and credited with reducing taxes and reducing the government. Although personal taxes were reduced (causing people who function on credit to borrow more to spend more) corporate and a plethora of other taxes were increased more than offsetting the decrease. The national debt grew, the size and scope of the government grew exponentially during his administration causing the next president to raise taxes again (George the 1st) but of course the use of a fiat currency that is borrowed into existence the debt can only increase which means future generations will be burdened with more debt and more taxation and more control. I have been in this fight for 50 years and seen nothing but failure. When we fought the "Land Use Act" and defeated it and thought we had won they quickly invented the EPA which is far worse with less control from the voting populace. I don't believe Pruitt anymore than I believe Trump. They are willing to sound authentic about their beliefs of restoring liberty while continuing the same practices.

In an ideal world (none such exist), the unnecessary agencies would be shut down immediately. However, establishing severe limits on Federal overreach is a necessary first step to wean the state agencies off of reliance on Federal control and establish their own independent responsibility. Pruitt understand this, and if he's successful, the EPA can be done away with before too many years pass.

Putting someone in charge of an organization that should not exist will not result in any change. He will try to comply with the standards set by previous CEO's of the organization, those beneath him will resist any change to eliminate or even countermand any of the previous invented rules because to do so would be to admit that there job should not exist. I expect nothing from the new administration that will move to eliminate any of these organizations or even slow them down.

Perhaps the feds could use the ACA to move the population to Hawaii for the winter under the guise of protecting their health since they have not invented a solution to the problem of not being in 'attainment' with the EPA air standards.

Better to have the Supreme Court overturn EPA's enabling law (the Clean Air Act) by narrowing the definition of interstate commerce to what it was before Wickard v. Filburn. That way we can expect the change to last beyond the Trump administration.

If this does not happen, Alaska should consider declaring independence.

Then let them begin by killing themselves.

The EPA feel humans are pollutants.

Well, and when it is -30 and the inversion causes the wood particulates to fall quickly to low-lying areas, no one is out there playing in the snow either. These people have no concept of what they are talking about - at worst, it can be +25 in Northern Virginia or DC and maybe 5 inches of snow will grind the urban region to a halt. Talking about -40 and 10 feet of snow is not something they have a point of reference for, and talking about the interior of Alaska as being "heavily polluted" is even more comical.

Trump won when he said "Drain the Swamp". I grew up in northern Minnesota, -10 was pretty much the norm for 3 months a year and we would always have a few -40 temps. When you live in a rural area, there isn't natural gas or cable TV plumbed to the front door. I realize that is a foreign concept to living in northern Virginia, but it simply doesn't exist. Relying on a propane tank for heat is a non-starter, it gets expensive and the deliveries are unreliable. The same for fuel oil.

The only secondary backup is going to be electric heat, and that is extremely expensive, and is also very "dry" - causes cotton mouth every night when you sleep.

These clowns have no idea what they are talking about. Get out from behind the spreadsheet and live life.

The legislators who passed the "Clean Air Act", and the President who signed it, are at least as responsible for this mess as the agency that enforces it. In addition to putting the "right people" in charge of the EPA, Trump and Congress need to repeal or drastically modify this pernicious piece of legislation.

Let us look at an other underlying motive (it's the government after all): taxes. A man cutting wood from his wood lot or whatever pays no taxes to keep warm whereas he must if using commercial fuels. It is ultimately about control and the EPA is just another lever.

Drain the swamp and the EPA with it. Better yet, let the EPA bureaucrats try to burn the snow and ice in alaska to keep warm.