Yes and No
" DC is more efficient than AC with less losses."
Over long distances, AC is more efficient than DC. The reason for this, as anyone who has studied the physics will tell you is that DC requires the movement of an electron from one end of the wire to the other end of the wire. It's not quite like that. It's more like having a pipe full of marbles. You push one in on one end of the pipe, and one falls out at the other end. The longer the pipe, the harder it is to move them. Edison ran into this problem while trying to deliver DC to the edge of NYC.
With AC however, you are not doing that. You're pulling the first electron out, and then pushing it back in. This sends a wave down the pipe instead. Instead of each electron needing to move forward against the resistance, they just move back and forth without going anywhere. So the energy is being carried by the wave. It's the difference of trying to move 10kg of water from Iceland to NYC and just causing a wave to move the 10kg of water up and down. The latter goes farther easier. Westinghouse had no problem delivering Tesla's AC to the edge of NYC for this reason. And to make it even easier, if the voltage dropped too much over the distance (i.e. the height of the waves got too small), AC could be put through a transformer to fix it while DC could not.
But if one is going short distances, then we run into different issues. When you look at 110VDC and 110VAC and plot them on a graph (or oscilloscope), the area under the (rectified) graph is the energy being transferred. DC has more area and therefore is more efficient but only at these short distances where wire resistance is negligible. (If one looks at 110V RMS, one will see that it peaks at 120V, which it needs to in order to compensate for the fact that it's AC.)
