The best deal in the commodity markets today currently yields a Treasury-beating 2.1% dividend... but it's so hated right now that very few people will buy today.

Japan's nuclear disaster probably set back the world's push toward nuclear-powered electric generation by years. Instead of huge nuclear energy expansion, which had been planned, we're likely going to see more nations stick with tried-and-true coal-fired electric plants, along with further expansion into natural gas.

So when I say that you should make a list of stocks to buy, I’m not saying you should jump into the market and buy them just because they’re down a few points. I’m saying you should name your price, have the capital ready, and jump on the opportunity IF it comes.

And if this correction is even half as big as I expect it to be, just about every boat will get sunk as the tide recedes.

Even big, blue chip stocks that every investor should own will get hammered.

Last year, Exxon-Mobil (NYSE: XOM) shares sold for less than $60 – even cheaper than they were during the depths of the 2008-2009 bear market – briefly selling for less than 10 times earnings.

That’s the kind of company that should be on your shopping list at that kind of price.

The Wall Street Journal reported today that troubles in Japan aren't staying on the island nation. Instead, they're spreading throughout the world.

From the Journal's article, "Global markets plunged as deepening worries over the specter of a nuclear power crisis in Japan in the wake of last week's earthquake and its economic implications sent investors scurrying again for safety."

This piece begs the question: what's safe these days? Is the U.S. Dollar safe? Are U.S. Treasuries safe?

Today I’m enlisting the help of my colleague and friend Tom Cullis to help fill in some of the gaps on the uranium story.

Tom adds a scientific outlook on the markets, as he’s worked as a research scientist on DNA extraction projects among other highly specialized and technical endeavors.

He recently wrote to me to explain some of the key points of the uranium supply story, and I think you’ll find his insight extremely helpful. His piece is a little longer than what I usually write in this daily letter, but if you read the information below, you’ll be better informed than 99% of other investors on this topic, and that’s information you can use to your advantage during these uncertain times in the market.

“As of January 1^st 2010 there were 437 active nuclear power plants in the world producing over 370GW, there are also currently 56 new plants under construction capable of producing an additional 512GW.

That means a capacity increase of 14% is well on the way in the pipeline for nuclear power, with plans for 29 more plants under review in the US alone and over 100 worldwide.

Nuclear capability is projected to grow at a faster rate than world energy consumption over the next 10, 20 or 50 years.

Middle East turmoil recently pushed up the price of crude oil, as I wrote in Friday's edition of Small Cap Investor Daily, Why Unrest in Libya Could Be a BOON to Europe's Natural Gas Market.

It is also a stark reminder that the world remains addicted to fossil fuels. In the years ahead, you’ll hear about a growing roster of countries turning to nuclear energy to meet their electricity generating needs.

Gold is entering a tenth straight year of gains, and if we're going to be honest with ourselves, that trend should give us pause before we add to a position in gold.

But don't sell your gold just yet. According to recent article from Bloomberg, there's still plenty of upside.

From the article:

"Dan Brebner, an analyst at Deutsche Bank in London who is the most accurate forecaster so far this year, says the metal may reach $1,550."

Listen, I just bought some gold a couple weeks ago, and I'll likely buy some more over the coming weeks and months, but I'm looking out over the horizon for the asset to buy today, to benefit from the next decade long uptrend.

I think I've found what I'm looking for.

There’s nothing better than a well articulated question to get the juices flowing on a Monday morning. To that point, I was glad to see a question from John B. of the UK in my inbox today.

John’s main point: uranium production numbers can be confusing. I agree.

There’s a few main issues that, for the most part, are largely unknown.

John asked,

“Mining Weekly (RSA) has just quoted NEA [Nuclear Energy Agency] DG Luis Echavarri, ‘By 2030, there will not be a very significant change in the number of NPPs [Nuclear Power Plants] in the world’.

You quote WNA [World Nuclear Association] reckoning on 5 times more uranium demand than at present in 2030!

Have you researched the schedule of closures and new build openings? It is all very confusing.”

John raises a good question that certainly merits further research.  It is confusing when two authorities on nuclear power seem to be in disagreement over how many plants will be built in the next 20+ years and how much that might affect demand for uranium. But upon closer inspection, I don’t think they are really disagreeing.

Yes, Vermont is probably the best place to go skiing on the East coast – but it’s also gorgeous and extremely livable in the summer. To that point, it does get pretty darn cold during the winter – usually there’s a week or two where we dip into the negative 20s. But the hottest days of the summer will scratch into the low 100s on occasion.

The biggest contradiction might be that Vermont gets a good chunk of its electricity from a nuclear plant called “Vermont Yankee.”

I know…you’re thinking: “liberal state” and “nuclear power” do not go together very well. And you’re right. It seems that Vermonters have been trying to close Vermont Yankee ever since it opened. Lately, the calls for its closure have grown much more shrill and frequent after a small amount of nuclear waste water *may* have leaked into the Connecticut River – the river that separates Vermont and New Hampshire, passes through the middle of Massachusetts and eventually outlets into the ocean on the Connecticut coast.