Does the rollout from 0 - 200mph takeoff speed really use the bulk of the takeoff energy? I figured most of the energy went to climbing 6 miles in altitude.
An aircraft carrier's catapult isn't about getting an aircraft to altitude, but about getting it to flight speed, on the attenuated runway of a carrier deck.
(Landing and arrestor cables are the equivalent problem in reverse.)
That said, a divide-and-conquer approach to reducing overall aircraft energy use might go some way to making electrically-powered flight ... at least more feasible, for larger payloads / passenger capacities, and distances, than is now conceived.
This includes ground taxiing (jet engines are quite inefficient at low speeds) via tugs, some form of take-off assist, jettisonable battery packs (after take-off and climb phases), general lightweighting of the airframe itself (already a major area of both research and accomplishment for electric aircraft), and automation and removing requirements for onboard pilots and flight attendants (the more paying bodies the more effective the business proposition).
There's possibly some room for optimisation of engine and airframe efficiencies, routing, and traffic control, and possibly some gains by hybrid designs (fuel + battery with electric drives, say).
As a whole though I suspect electric aircraft have been oversold, and that aviation as a whole will see reduced availability and usage in future.