Discussions of solar panel electricity generation efficiency point out that photovoltaic-panel-generated electricity is not competitive today due, in part, to the overall inefficiency of DC power in an AC world. Energy is lost inverting from DC to AC, then turning right around and rectifying back to DC inside our myriad electronic toys. I am surprised that no one seems to have questioned the premise that the power grid needs be AC and explored the opportunities opened by the potential of a distributed power generation network -- possible in a future with a solar panel on every roof.
AC became the defacto power distribution standard because it is more efficient in a massive-central-energy-generation/ hub-and-spoke distribution system model, because AC reduces long distance transmission line energy losses. But those losses are still huge, and AC is not quite as efficient as proponents might argue if the whole-system losses are considered.
But picture a distributed generation/DC future. Power is generated at point of use. Excess power is distributed over an efficient local mesh network/grid. Your house is DC wired with at most only a small AC legacy system for supplemental power import, or to run those few legacy AC power tools. Electronics/appliances plug into the outlet without need for a wall-wart or other rectifier circuit. An all-DC local-generation system chalks up a big system-wide efficiency boost and becomes much more competitive with the current centralized AC model.
The legacy AC system can remain as a peak/supplemental power grid, rectifying down to keep the house batteries charged. The added benny is that the existing AC system now has excess capacity, and can meet demand well into the future without additional infrastructure blighting our rural vistas with more transmission lines, power plants, and air pollution, and coal mining scars.
Am I missin something here? Or is this something that inquiring minds more clever than mine should be seriously thinking about?

I don't know the technical issues. But, there may be serious issues of practicality and timeliness of being able to make such a change. Perhaps this type of change can be driven from the bottom up as more and more homes generate some or all of their own electricity.

I would also point out that part of the reason that many of the renewable technologies are first achieving parity with older fossil fuel or nuclear technologies in terms of cost is quite simply that they are competing against technologies that should be heavily taxed due to their environmental impact but are instead heavily subsidized.

Certainly, nuclear is the most expensive power there is. But when government subsidies are in the billions, it looks attractive to power companies. And even these costs ignore the fact that we still haven't even figured out what to do with the waste, which will be extremely expensive.

Oil is so heavily subsidized that if only the subsidies were removed the price of a gallon of gasoline would go up over 50%, and that doesn't count the health and environmental impacts, the cost of defending the oil fields, clean up of spills, etc.

Coal appears cheap when we can use cheap oil power to remove entire mountains AND THEN FAIL TO VALUE THE MOUNTAIN IN ANY WAY.