[All numerals in this post are dozenal; Χ is ten and Ɛ is eleven. Scientific notation is represented by mantissa@exponent.]

Ungrouped powers of twelve

10 = dozen
100 = gross
1000 = trizzon (or grand)
1@+4 = quatrizzon
1@+5 = cinizzon
1@+6 = sesizzon
1@+7 = setizzon
1@+8 = octizzon
1@+9 = nenizzon
1@+Χ = decizzon
1@+Ɛ = elncizzon
1@+10 = unzerizzon
1@+11 = ununizzon
1@+12 = unduizzon
1@+13 = untrizzon
1@+14 = unquatrizzon
...
1@+20 = duzerizzon
1@+30 = trezerizzon

etc. Note that the name includes the digits in the exponent. This gives us a convenient way to pronounce:

Scientific Notation

x@n is simply x n-izzon. For example:

4.Χ6@1Ɛ9 = "four point ten six un-elnce-nen-izzon" (hyphenated for clarity)

Digit Grouping

Digits may be ungrouped

141981Ɛ87854 = "one elncizzon, four decizzon, one nenizzon, nine octizzon, eight setizzon, one sessizzon, eleven cinizzon, eight quatrizzon, seven trizzon, eight gross, five dozen, four"

grouped by 2s:

14 19 81 Ɛ8 78 54 = "one dozen four decizzon, one dozen nine octizzon, eight dozen one sesizzon, eleven dozen eight quatrizzon, seven dozen eight gross, five dozen four"

grouped by 3s:

141 981 Ɛ87 854 = "one gross four dozen one nenizzon, nine gross eight dozen one sesizzon, eleven gross eight dozen seven trizzon, eight gross five dozen four.

grouped by 4s:

1419 81Ɛ8 7854 = "one grand four gross one dozen nine octizzon, eight grand one gross eleven dozen eight quatrizzon, seven grand eight gross five dozen four"

or whatever else is convenient.

Frankly, I do not like your proposal very much, because:

1. For everyday numbers up to *10^10 (doogol), the already proposed names zillion, zilliard, zyriad are easy to pronounce (unlike "sesizzon", for example) and similar to our existing decimal number names, hence easy to learn. I see no need

2. For higher numbers, there is the TGM proposal, but many people here don't like that either. It is very similar to your approach, but the TGM names are shorter and easier to pronounce, in my opinion (well, I'm no native speaker...). But then, I would try to avoid inventing new arbitrary number names, if possible.

3. Why not use a naming system for scientific numbers that is even simpler than the current decimal one? 1.2345z+67 (that is, 1.2345 x 10^67 dozenal) could be read "exponent six-dozen-eight, point one two three four five". That means, it is interpreted as 0.12345z+68, and then the most significant information, the exponent, comes first, and then the rest, starting with the most significant figure. The word "exponent" could (maybe should) be replaced by "dozenal" or "dozex" or something like that; it's only a marker that indicates the use of this kind of scientific spelling.