Talk:Akademik Lomonosov

The article picture is idealized
I understand there is no other one for the moment available, but in no way reflects the bad conservation status of that dangerous vessel.

I think there is a picture now at this link. https://www.nationalreview.com/photos/top-shots-week-may-2018/#slide-76 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.110.31.57 (talk) 07:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There's just a picture of a regular looking barge on the page, which is what it actually would look like. Would you prefer a 3D rendering where it had grown arms and was raping a baby while pouring molten plutonium down its throat?
 * That's because pictures on an encyclopedia aren't there to reflect your opinions or anybody elses'. It's why Hitler's page has photographs of him actually screwing around and smiling for the camera in addition to the more common pissed off dictator photos.  Those don't get to be taken down because he was one of history's mid-grade monsters.  He'd have needed to win WW2 to compete with the percentages of the world population  various religions have racked up over thousands of years.
 * Russia screwed up with chernobyl and dealt with that mess as quickly and efficiently as was possible at the cost of many lives. The point isn't that they screwed up, which wasn't even possible with later designs of reactor, it's that they knew how bad it was and fixed it when honestly they have enough land mass that they could have just let it keep melting down and moved everybody further east.  I'll go right ahead and trust them with a much smaller reactor design that isn't capable of melting  unless somebody takes a cutting torch to it (and that still isn't a meltdown).
 * Meanwhile Japan built the Fukushima power plant in a tsunami zone that was illegal to build even small buildings in, the predictable happened, and it's still in active meltdown status 12 years later with everything nearby evacuated, and leaking into both retention areas and the ocean. Go worry about pictures of that which don't seem to exist anywhere. If you need a cultural dislike of the country to criticize their disaster handling go look up the Rape of Nanking where their actions make the Nazi death camps look humane (just prepared to puke from the pictures on the article, because unlike my disgusting sounding barge rendering above which depicts something that didn't and won't happen, you'll find photos-o-plenty of children raped to death with bottles, bayonets, and whatever else was laying around)... or Unit 731 which makes Mengele's human experiments look rational and friendly in comparison and even puts the various torture methods applied by the Spanish Inquisition to shame.  They weren't even asking any questions, either.  I wouldn't make these comparisons on the pages involved though, if anything I'd try to make them more neutral if I found that environmentalist idiots had inserted some huge rant about nuclear power and conservation or even mentioned any Japan's war crimes there, I reserve that for rare situations when it seems necessary in order to explain the extremely obvious to people when they request that their POV be inserted into articles and have the gall to be too lazy to do it themselves on top of that.  A Shortfall Of Gravitas (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

This article needs a Criticism section
Reactions around the world are highly contrary to the concept of a floating nuclear power plant. Just the safety protocols, both in design, and in operation, for a regular nuclear power plant are discarded, and cannot be applied to such a reckless model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.125.107.33 (talk • contribs) 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to find reliable sources and do so. Greenpeace is already mentioned in the article BTW. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Плавуча АЕС "Академік Ломоносов", квітень 2018 року.jpg

Actual cost?
The history section quasi-factually states that "it cost" $232 million, citing an 11-year-old article from back when the construction had barely started. Meanwhile the infobox gives a figure of "US$336 million (projected)", but with no reference. Both figures can't be true, and it's possible that neither is; I gather the Russian authorities haven't disclosed the final cost. How should this be addressed, given that there may not be a current and reliable final figure to cite? DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)