To an extent this is already done. For each take off the pilots work out the V speeds and length of runway required, based on meteorological conditions, weight, safety margins etc. A given amount of thrust is required to reach take off speed within the length of runway to be used, and the pilots have to confirm the engines are able to produce that thrust and achieve take off and climb safely.
The old school approach was to use maximum thrust and get off the ground asap. But Laker (so you can guess the motivations) developed and used a technique called reduced thrust take off (now also known as "Flex"). The idea is that if you have more runway length available than required then it is possible to use less thrust and take off further down the runway. The benefits include less engine wear and reduced fuel use. So is attractive to airlines that want to save money.
The problem is that using up more of the runway reduces the safety margin if things go wrong. It is still 'safe', but in the drive to maximise efficiency the boundaries get pushed and the potential for human errors is always a risk. But in principle, building
longer runways could help to reduce the energy required for aircraft to safely take off.
There have been trials and experiments with jet or rocket assisted take off. Search for a video of "C-130 Fat Albert rocket" to get an idea.
Jet engines used only for assist would come with a weight penalty like batteries, but with rockets a significant proportion of their weight is fuel which would be used up during take off. It might also be possible to jettison the rockets in a safe area to further reduce weight and drag. I'm not sure noise campaigners and safety regulators would approve of their frequent use on passenger flights though.
Landing with the same weight of batteries as you took off with is also going to take some thinking about by aircraft and runway designers. Potentially it is more of a problem than the take off or cruise.