tldr: They’re already being deployed in some shorthaul routes.
"A battery's efficiency, or ability to hold power, is measured in specific energy. Right now, even the best batteries have a specific energy of only 250 watt-hours per kilogram, but we have to get closer to 800 to really start flying, and that is still nothing compared to jet fuel's specific energy, which is nearly 12,000 watt-hours per kilogram."
"So if you want to add more power to a plane, you need to get a bigger battery, and to get that plane airborne despite the weight, you'll need even bigger battery that's more powerful, but that means more weight. And then you'll need an even bigger battery to offset that weight."
https://www.businessinsider.com/electric-planes-future-of-av...
He basically made the same battery weight argument and was pushing for alternative biofuels for planes, if I remember correctly. And that was just published earlier this year, and seemed pretty comprehensive about discussing all possible solutions, at least as far as I could tell.
Maybe just because it's (presumably) nowhere near the point where it could be feasible for commercial passenger planes?
You can use some biofuels (limonene) as a near-direct substitute for jet fuel though. I think maybe you need to change a few o-rings but the vapor pressure, combustion point, etc are all there and it's been demonstrated in Australia.
For longer flights there are other more realistic alternatives with no net emissions, which are mainly hydrogen (made from electrolysis) and biofuels (made using carbon already present in the air).
Basically, imagine you have an electric plane with a range of 500 miles and travels at 250mph, and a train that travels at 125mph.
For the 500 mile trip, it's 2 vs 4 hours, but the train ride is generally going to be a better experience, and you'll arrive more rested and closer to your destination.
For a location like Europe, where high-speed rail is fairly developed, it's a hard sell to switch to electric planes in this case, IMO.