The Solid sorbent is regenerated by changing the temperature or pressure through which  CO2 to be released. Solid sorbents hold economic promise over amine-based CCS systems, because less energy is required in the regeneration step. There is no need for steam, and solid sorbents typically have lower energy requirements for sensible heating of regeneration gas than liquid water-based solvents. This means that less sensible heat is required to regenerate the sorbent.  Yes you are  right, i hope it is possible to integrate such a process into a power plant to reduce the energy penalty.  

The chilled ammonia process patented by Alstom requires significantly lower energy expenditures in the desorber compared with amine processes. http://training.swpartnership.org/CCSclass/CCS_Module_files/Chilledammonia.pdf

The chilled ammonia process patented by Alstom requires significantly lower energy expenditures in the desorber compared with amine processes. http://training.swpartnership.org/CCSclass/CCS_Module_files/Chilledammonia.pdf

A major challenge associated with ammonia-based systems is that of ammonia slip. Because ammonia is more volatile than amines, it can sometimes be released into the fluegas stream during absorption. If ammonia-based processes are to be economically viable, ammonia slip must be controlled to avoid the need for additional fluegas cleanup.

While as discussed by Michel sir, Alstom process has controlled the amount of ammonia slip by chilling the solvent and fluegas, there are very significant energy costs associated with this chilling. Therefore, ammonia-based processes must be optimized to minimize ammonia slip in the most efficient way possible.

The amine process can also use waste heat in regeneration to reduce the energy penalty. For example to improve stripper temperature profile. We were investigating it in our pilot plant, using lean and semi lean solvent with built-in internal heaters into stripper. Reboiler heat duty dropped about 11-15%.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610214024795#

Thanks for the feedback! I was hoping to get some more specific estimates from power cycle experts about what the impact of reducing regeneration temperature can be on the energy penalty. For example, if the regeneration temperature can be significantly below 100 deg C so that the regeneration reactor can be equipped with some tubes in which low pressure steam extracted from the steam cycle is condensed, essentially all the energy can be extracted from the steam, leading to very low energy penalties. In this way, the latent heat of condensation would not be lost/rejected as it is in a steam power cycle.