100x increase? Is that based on calculation based on the energy density of fuel vs batteries alone? Because there's a lot of efficiencies to be gained if you make a battery electric plane from scratch. And are you considering only a fully fuelled plane? Because many routes will only use a small fraction of the potential fuel capacity.
Look at the Maxwell X-57 for instance. If you don't have fuel in the wings, and you can use small electric take-off propellers on the wings, you can make the wing much thinner, which reduces drag.
You can potentially fly higher with electric planes, since you no longer have to think about air densitys impact on engine efficiency.
The main challenge with electric airplanes is not really the batteries. You could probably make viable short-haul planes with todays technology. The problem is you're basically starting from scratch, as a plane optimised for electric engines is most likely vastly different from a 737 airframe. It'll take decades to design and optimize radically new airframes.
We might never see planes crossing the pacific ocean with batteries only, but that doesn't mean electric planes aren't viable. By some calculations you can do 500-1000km routes with todays battery tech already, and there's a shitload of those. Maybe you'll have to fly 2-3 smaller planes rather than one huge one to cover the same route, but that can be a good thing. You could use smaller and more local airports. Electric planes are much more quiet after all. Operating costs with electric planes are way lower, so it might not be more expensive either.
With a 3x+ capacity you can start talking about covering most of the routes within a continent. So what if you can't do transcontinental? I think we can make enough biofuel to cover that if most other flights are electric (and/or hydrogen)