China vs Latvia: Getting electricity: System average interruption duration
China
0.896 DB16-20 methodology
in 2019
Latvia
0.99 DB16-20 methodology
in 2019
China rank
81st
Latvia rank
78th
Getting electricity: System average interruption duration over time
- China
- Latvia
How they compare
Latvia currently reports 0.99 DB16-20 methodology against 0.896 DB16-20 methodology in China, a difference of 0.094 DB16-20 methodology.
That makes Latvia's figure about 1.1 times China's.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 6 shared years of data; in 2014 it was Latvia ahead.
China ranks 81st and Latvia ranks 78th of 127 countries.
Latvia has averaged higher in every one of the 1 decades both report.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher getting electricity: system average interruption duration index, China or Latvia?
- Latvia, at 0.99 DB16-20 methodology against 0.896 DB16-20 methodology in China as of 2019.
- What is the difference in getting electricity: system average interruption duration index between China and Latvia?
- 0.094 DB16-20 methodology, with Latvia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for China and Latvia?
- 6 years are reported by both, from 2014 to 2019.
- How do China and Latvia rank globally for getting electricity: system average interruption duration index?
- China ranks 81st and Latvia ranks 78th of 127 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Getting electricity: System average interruption duration index (SAIDI) (DB16-20 methodology). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The system average interruption duration index is the average total duration of outages (in hours) experienced by a customer in a year. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.